Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Murray v. Rudloff, 4th Cir. (2006)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    9 views3 pages
    This document is a court ruling from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in the case of Richard Douglas Murray, Sr. v. Edward J. Rudloff et al. The court affirmed the district court's dismissal of Murray's §1983 complaint. The court found that Murray failed to file specific objections to the magistrate judge's recommendation, as required to preserve his right to appellate review, despite being warned that this failure could waive review. As such, the court denied Murray's motion for appointment of counsel and affirmed the lower court's judgment.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2006-03-29 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 05-7637

    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 a court ruling from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in the case of Richard Douglas Murray, Sr. v. Edward J. Rudloff et al. The court affirmed the district court's dismissal of Murray's §1983 complaint. The court found that Murray failed to file specific objections to the magistrate judge's recommendation, as required to preserve his right to appellate review, despite being warned that this failure could waive review. As such, the court denied Murray's motion for appointment of counsel and affirmed the lower court's judgment.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    9 views3 pages

    Murray v. Rudloff, 4th Cir. (2006)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document is a court ruling from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in the case of Richard Douglas Murray, Sr. v. Edward J. Rudloff et al. The court affirmed the district court's dismissal of Murray's §1983 complaint. The court found that Murray failed to file specific objections to the magistrate judge's recommendation, as required to preserve his right to appellate review, despite being warned that this failure could waive review. As such, the court denied Murray's motion for appointment of counsel and affirmed the lower court's judgment.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 3

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 05-7637

    RICHARD DOUGLAS MURRAY, SR.,


    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    versus
    EDWARD J. RUDLOFF, Administrator, Eastern
    Regional Jail; JAMES RUBENSTEIN, Commissioner,
    Department of Corrections; BARBRA WHITE,
    Nursing Director Prime Care Medical; GLEN
    STOTLER, President, Morgan County Commission,
    Defendants - Appellees.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
    District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. W. Craig Broadwater,
    District Judge. (CA-04-103-3)

    Submitted: March 23, 2006

    Decided: March 29, 2006

    Before WILKINSON, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Richard Douglas Murray, Sr., Appellant Pro Se. Tracey Brown


    Eberling, STEPTOE & JOHNSON, Martinsburg, West Virginia; Charles
    Patrick Houdyschell, Jr., WEST VIRGINIA DIVISION OF CORRECTIONS,
    Charleston, West Virginia; Mark William Browning, SHUMAN, MCCLUSKEY
    & SLICER, PLLC, Charleston, West Virginia; Michael Douglas
    Lorensen, BOWLES, RICE, MCDAVID, GRAFF & LOVE, PLLC, Martinsburg,

    West Virginia; Debra MH McLaughlin, Berkeley, West Virginia, for


    Appellees.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    - 2 -

    PER CURIAM:
    Richard Douglas Murray, Sr., appeals the district courts
    order dismissing his 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 Murray that failure to timely


    file

    specific

    appellate

    objections

    review

    recommendation.

    of

    to

    this

    district

    recommendation

    court

    order

    could

    based

    waive

    upon

    the

    Despite this warning, Murray failed to file

    specific objections 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 specifically object will waive appellate
    review.

    See Page v. Lee, 337 F.3d 411, 416 n.3 (4th Cir. 2003);

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

    Murray has waived appellate

    review by failing to file specific objections after receiving


    proper

    notice.

    Accordingly,

    we

    deny

    Murrays

    motion

    for

    appointment of counsel and 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
    - 3 -

    You might also like