Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Putman v. Wal-Mart, 4th Cir. (2004)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    0 views2 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of Linda Ann Putman's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against Wal-Mart. The district court had referred the case to a magistrate judge, who recommended denying relief. Putman did not file any objections to the magistrate's recommendation, despite being warned that failing to do so would waive her right to appellate review. Because Putman did not preserve her right to appellate review by objecting, the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2004-03-30 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 03-2277

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of Linda Ann Putman's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against Wal-Mart. The district court had referred the case to a magistrate judge, who recommended denying relief. Putman did not file any objections to the magistrate's recommendation, despite being warned that failing to do so would waive her right to appellate review. Because Putman did not preserve her right to appellate review by objecting, the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    0 views2 pages

    Putman v. Wal-Mart, 4th Cir. (2004)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of Linda Ann Putman's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against Wal-Mart. The district court had referred the case to a magistrate judge, who recommended denying relief. Putman did not file any objections to the magistrate's recommendation, despite being warned that failing to do so would waive her right to appellate review. Because Putman did not preserve her right to appellate review by objecting, the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 2

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 03-2277

    LINDA ANN PUTMAN,


    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    versus
    WAL-MART,
    Defendant - Appellee.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    South Carolina, at Greenville. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District
    Judge. (CA-02-3653-6)

    Submitted:

    March 12, 2004

    Decided:

    March 30, 2004

    Before MICHAEL, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Linda Ann Putman, Appellant Pro Se. Jim Odell Stuckey, II, Deborah
    Nye Whittle, Willie F. Bradley, Jr., NELSON MULLINS RILEY &
    SCARBOROUGH, L.L.P., Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Linda Ann Putman appeals the district courts order
    dismissing her 42 U.S.C. 1983 (2000) complaint.

    The district

    court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28


    U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(B) (2000).

    The magistrate judge recommended

    that relief be denied and advised Putman that failure to file


    timely objections to this recommendation would waive appellate
    review of a district court order based upon the recommendation.
    Despite this warning, Putman failed to object to the magistrate
    judges recommendation.
    The timely filing of specific objections to a magistrate
    judges recommendation is necessary to preserve appellate review of
    the substance of that recommendation when the parties have been
    warned that failure to object will waive appellate review.

    See

    Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985); see also
    Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985).

    Putman has waived appellate

    review by failing to file 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 -

    You might also like