UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-7283
WILLIAM T. COLEMAN,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
YORK COUNTY 16 CIRCUIT JUDICIAL COURT; JUDGE JOHN C. HAYES,
III, Judge Code 2049,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., District
Judge. (0:12-cv-01967-JFA)
Submitted: December 27, 2013 Decided: January 16, 2014
Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
William T. Coleman, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
William T. Coleman 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) (2012). The magistrate judge
recommended that relief be denied and advised Coleman that
failure to file timely objections to this recommendation could
waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the
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).
Coleman has waived appellate review as to his claim against the
York County court by failing to file specific objections after
receiving proper notice. We conclude, however, that Coleman’s
objections adequately preserved his claim against Judge Hayes,
but that the claim fails because the judge is immune from suit.
See Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 356-57 (1978).
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
2
before this Court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
AFFIRMED
3