UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-1887
SIDNEY B. HARR,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA; U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE THOMAS D.
SCHROEDER; RICHARD H. BRODHEAD; DAVID F. LEVI; DUKE
UNIVERSITY,
Defendants – Appellees
and
MAGISTRATE P. TREVOR SHARP,
Defendant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Catherine C. Eagles,
District Judge. (1:13-cv-00673-CCE-JLW)
Submitted: December 18, 2014 Decided: December 22, 2014
Before SHEDD, WYNN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Sidney B. Harr, Appellant Pro Se. Roy Cooper, Attorney General,
Kathryn Hicks Shields, Assistant Attorney General, Raleigh,
North Carolina; Joseph W. H. Mott, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY, Roanoke, Virginia; Christopher W. Jackson, Dixie
Thomas Wells, ELLIS & WINTERS, LLP, Greensboro, North Carolina,
for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
Sidney B. Harr appeals the district court’s orders
granting Defendants’ motions to dismiss his 42 U.S.C. § 1983
(2012) complaint against them, and denying his subsequently
filed motion to rescind. The district court referred this case
to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) (2012).
The magistrate judge recommended that Defendants’ motions to
dismiss be granted and advised Harr that failure to file timely
objections to the 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. Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co.,
416 F.3d 310, 315-16 (4th Cir. 2005); Wright v. Collins, 766
F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985). Harr waived appellate review
by failing to file objections after receiving proper notice. In
addition, we agree with the district court that Harr’s motion to
rescind was meritless. Accordingly, we affirm the district
court’s orders.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
3
before this court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
AFFIRMED
4