Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Locke v. Johnson, 4th Cir. (2006)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    8 views2 pages
    1) Robert Locke appealed the district court's dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. 2) The district court had referred the case to a magistrate judge, who recommended denying relief and warned Locke that failing to object could waive his right to appeal. 3) However, Locke failed to object to the magistrate's recommendation. Because he did not object after receiving proper notice, the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment, concluding that Locke had waived his right to appellate review.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2006-05-22 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 05-7976

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    1) Robert Locke appealed the district court's dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. 2) The district court had referred the case to a magistrate judge, who recommended denying relief and warned Locke that failing to object could waive his right to appeal. 3) However, Locke failed to object to the magistrate's recommendation. Because he did not object after receiving proper notice, the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment, concluding that Locke had waived his right to appellate review.

    Copyright:

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

    Locke v. Johnson, 4th Cir. (2006)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    1) Robert Locke appealed the district court's dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. 2) The district court had referred the case to a magistrate judge, who recommended denying relief and warned Locke that failing to object could waive his right to appeal. 3) However, Locke failed to object to the magistrate's recommendation. Because he did not object after receiving proper notice, the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment, concluding that Locke had waived his right to appellate review.

    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    UNPUBLISHED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. 05-7976

    ROBERT C. LOCKE,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    versus
    GENE JOHNSON, Director for the Virginia
    Department of Corrections; HELEN F. FAHEY,
    Chairwoman for the Virginia Parole Board,
    Defendants - Appellees.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Richmond.
    Robert E. Payne, District
    Judge. (CA-05-411)

    Submitted: May 16, 2006

    Decided: May 22, 2006

    Before WILLIAMS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Robert C. Locke, Appellant Pro Se.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Robert

    C.

    Locke

    appeals

    the

    district

    dismissing his 42 U.S.C. 1983 (2000) complaint.

    courts

    order

    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 Locke that failure to file timely
    objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review of
    a district court order based upon the recommendation. Despite this
    warning,

    Locke

    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).

    Locke 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