UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-7426
JOHN ROOSEVELT BACCUS, a/k/a John Baccus,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
BILL BYARS, Director of South Carolina Department of
Corrections SCDC; NIKKI HALEY, Governor of South Carolina;
JEAN HOEFER TOAL, Chief Justice of South Carolina Supreme
Court; LEROY CARTLEDGE, Warden; LEWIS A SCOTT; FRANK
MURSIER; MAJOR STEVEN; JAMES PARKER, Capt; WARDEN YARBOUGH,
Asso; JOYCE YOUNG, Cpl; J. FRANKLIN, Mailroom; TERRY;
SERGEANT JONES, Classification; CAMBELL; SERGEANT MOSS,
Food Supervisor; MARCIA FULLER, RD; N BARBER; SEN CHAMPLIN;
NURSE ANDREWS; NURSE JAMES; J MCCREE, Physician; ELIZABETH
WALKER, Adm Specialist; COREENE, Correctional Officer C-O;
MS. LEWIS, Dental; MS HINES, Dental; LIEUTENANT WRIGHT;
SERGEANT WRIGHT; MS. BELL; LT. THOMPLINS; MS. LEE, CO; MR
BEGGS,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Beaufort. David C. Norton, District Judge.
(9:11-cv-01280-DCN)
Submitted: January 31, 2012 Decided: February 3, 2012
Before NIEMEYER, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
John Roosevelt Baccus, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
John Roosevelt Baccus 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.A. § 636(b)(1)(B) (West 2006 & Supp. 2011).
The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and
advised Baccus 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). Baccus
has waived appellate review by failing to file specific
objections after receiving proper notice. Accordingly, we
affirm the judgment of the district court.
We deny Baccus’s motions for injunctive relief pending
appeal, emergency intervention, and for release. We dispense
with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
3
adequately presented in the materials before the court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
4