Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • James Williams v. Michael Studivent, 4th Cir. (2012)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    21 views2 pages
    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirming the district court's denial of relief to James A. Williams on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. The district court had referred the case to a magistrate judge, who recommended denial of relief and warned that failure to file timely objections could waive appellate review. Williams failed to file objections, so the Fourth Circuit affirmed, holding that he had waived appellate review.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2012-08-17 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 12-1755

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirming the district court's denial of relief to James A. Williams on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. The district court had referred the case to a magistrate judge, who recommended denial of relief and warned that failure to file timely objections could waive appellate review. Williams failed to file objections, so the Fourth Circuit affirmed, holding that he had waived appellate review.

    Copyright:

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

    James Williams v. Michael Studivent, 4th Cir. (2012)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirming the district court's denial of relief to James A. Williams on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. The district court had referred the case to a magistrate judge, who recommended denial of relief and warned that failure to file timely objections could waive appellate review. Williams failed to file objections, so the Fourth Circuit affirmed, holding that he had waived 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    UNPUBLISHED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. 12-1755

    JAMES A. WILLIAMS,
    Plaintiff Appellant,
    v.
    MICHAEL STUDIVENT, Official Capacity; DEBORAH LANKFORD,
    Individual
    and
    Official
    Capacity;
    SAMUEL
    LANKFORD,
    Individual and Official Capacity; LANKFORD PROTECTIVE
    SERVICES, Official Capacity; TOMMY STEVENS, Individual and
    Official Capacity,
    Defendants - Appellees.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
    District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Thomas D. Schroeder,
    District Judge. (1:09-cv-00414-TDS-LPA)

    Submitted:

    August 13, 2012

    Decided:

    August 17, 2012

    Before GREGORY, DUNCAN, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    James A. Williams, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Studivent, BEE AND


    JAY MOTORS, Greensboro, North Carolina; Sarah Helen Roane,
    OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, PC, Greensboro, North
    Carolina; William L. Hill, James Demarest Secor, III, FRAZIER
    HILL & FURY, RLLP, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellees.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    James A. Williams appeals the district courts order
    denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. 1983 (2006) complaint.

    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 relief be denied and advised


    Williams

    that

    failure

    to

    file

    timely

    objections

    to

    this

    recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court


    order based upon the recommendation.
    The
    magistrate

    timely

    judges

    filing

    of

    specific

    recommendation

    is

    objections

    necessary

    to

    to

    preserve

    appellate review of the substance of that recommendation when


    the

    parties

    have

    noncompliance.
    Cir.

    1985);

    Williams
    objections

    warned

    of

    the

    consequences

    of

    Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th

    see

    has

    been

    also

    waived

    after

    Thomas

    v.

    appellate

    receiving

    Arn,

    474

    review

    by

    proper

    U.S.

    140

    failing

    notice.

    (1985).
    to

    Accordingly,

    file
    we

    affirm the judgment of the district court.


    We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
    legal
    before

    contentions
    the

    court

    are

    adequately

    and

    argument

    presented

    would

    not

    in
    aid

    the
    the

    materials
    decisional

    process.
    AFFIRMED

    You might also like