Tisdale v. South Carolina Highway Patrol

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-6867

CLAYTON HOWARD TISDALE,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

SOUTH CAROLINA HIGHWAY PATROL; R. D. TREVATHON, the arrested
officer,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Henry F. Floyd, District Judge.
(0:09-cv-00403-HFF)

Submitted: August 20, 2009 Decided: August 27, 2009

Before WILKINSON and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON,
Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Clayton Howard Tisdale, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

Clayton Howard Tisdale appeals the district court’s

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. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2006). The magistrate

judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Tisdale that

failure to file timely and specific objections to this

recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court

order based upon the recommendation. Despite this warning,

Tisdale failed to object to the magistrate judge’s

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).

Tisdale 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