Filed: Nov. 19, 2009
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-1506 YVETTE COLE, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. SOUTH CAROLINA, State of; HAMPTON, County of, Defendants – Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Beaufort. Sol Blatt, Jr., Senior District Judge. (9:09-cv-00324-SB) Submitted: November 5, 2009 Decided: November 19, 2009 Before DUNCAN and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per cu
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-1506 YVETTE COLE, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. SOUTH CAROLINA, State of; HAMPTON, County of, Defendants – Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Beaufort. Sol Blatt, Jr., Senior District Judge. (9:09-cv-00324-SB) Submitted: November 5, 2009 Decided: November 19, 2009 Before DUNCAN and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per cur..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-1506
YVETTE COLE,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
SOUTH CAROLINA, State of; HAMPTON, County of,
Defendants – Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Beaufort. Sol Blatt, Jr., Senior District
Judge. (9:09-cv-00324-SB)
Submitted: November 5, 2009 Decided: November 19, 2009
Before DUNCAN and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Yvette Cole, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Yvette Cole appeals the district court’s order denying
relief on her 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 Cole that failure to file
timely objections to this recommendation could waive appellate
review of a district court order based upon the recommendation.
Despite this warning, Cole 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). Cole
has waived appellate review by failing to timely file specific
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