Joseph Macon v. GEICO Insurance ( 2012 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-1708
JOSEPH E. MACON, a/k/a Joe E. Macon,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
GEICO INSURANCE; SCDMV,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Anderson. Timothy M. Cain, District Judge.
(8:11-cv-00007-TMC)
Submitted: July 19, 2012 Decided: July 23, 2012
Before DUNCAN, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Joseph E. Macon, Appellant Pro Se. David L. Moore, Jr., NEXSEN
PRUET, Greenville, South Carolina; Russell W. Harter, Jr.,
CHAPMAN, HARTER & GROVES, PA, Greenville, South Carolina, for
Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Joseph E. Macon seeks to appeal the district court’s
order dismissing his civil action for failure to prosecute
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). The district court referred
this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A.
§ 636(b)(1)(B) (West 2006 & Supp. 2012). The magistrate judge
recommended that the action be dismissed and advised Macon that
failure to timely file specific objections to this
recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court
order based upon the recommendation.
The timely filing of specific objections to a
magistrate judge’s recommendation is necessary to preserve
appellate review of the substance of that recommendation when
the parties have been warned of the consequences of
noncompliance. Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th
Cir. 1985); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Macon
has waived appellate review by failing to timely file specific
objections after receiving proper notice. Accordingly, we
affirm the judgment of the district court.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
AFFIRMED
2