Filed: Sep. 30, 2010
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-1256 ALISON LEVON BOYD, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. ANNA MILLS WAGONER, IN HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY AND INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY AS UNITED STATES ATTORNEY FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA; RYAN COGGINS, In his individual and official capacity as an officer of the Greensboro Police Department; CHRISTOPHER COTTONARO, In his individual and official capacity as an officer of the Greensboro Police Department; LISA BLUE BOGGS, In
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-1256 ALISON LEVON BOYD, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. ANNA MILLS WAGONER, IN HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY AND INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY AS UNITED STATES ATTORNEY FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA; RYAN COGGINS, In his individual and official capacity as an officer of the Greensboro Police Department; CHRISTOPHER COTTONARO, In his individual and official capacity as an officer of the Greensboro Police Department; LISA BLUE BOGGS, In h..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-1256
ALISON LEVON BOYD,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
ANNA MILLS WAGONER, IN HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY AND INDIVIDUAL
CAPACITY AS UNITED STATES ATTORNEY FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT
OF NORTH CAROLINA; RYAN COGGINS, In his individual and
official capacity as an officer of the Greensboro Police
Department; CHRISTOPHER COTTONARO, In his individual and
official capacity as an officer of the Greensboro Police
Department; LISA BLUE BOGGS, In her official capacity and
individual capacity as Assistant U.S. Attorney; ERIC H.
HOLDER, JR., In his official capacity and his individual
capacity as U.S. Attorney General; THOMAS DAVID SCHROEDER,
In his individual and official capacity as a U.S. Judge for
the Middle District of North Carolina; WILLIAM STIMSON
TRIVETTE, In his individual and official capacity as a
practicing attorney; TIM R. BELLAMY, In his individual and
official capacity as Chief of the Greensboro Police
Department; N. CARLTON TILLEY, In his individual and
official capacity as a U.S. Judge for the Middle District of
North Carolina; WILLIAM L. OSTEEN, JR., In his individual
and official capacity as a U.S. Judge for the Middle
District of North Carolina; JAMES A. BEATY, JR., In his
individual and official capacity as a U.S. Judge for the
Middle District of North Carolina; SHARP, In his individual
and official capacity as a U.S. Judge for the Middle
District of North Carolina; ELLISON, In his individual and
official capacity as a U.S. Judge for the Middle District of
North Carolina,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Durham. Malcolm J. Howard,
Senior District Judge. (1:09-cv-00930-MJH-WWD)
Submitted: September 28, 2010 Decided: September 30, 2010
Before WILKINSON, SHEDD, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Alison Levon Boyd, Appellant Pro Se. Gill Paul Beck, Sr.,
Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina,
for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
Alison Levon Boyd appeals the district court’s order
adopting the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation and
dismissing his complaint as frivolous. 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 Boyd 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, Boyd failed to timely 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). Boyd
waived appellate review by failing to timely file specific
objections after receiving proper notice. Accordingly, we
affirm the judgment of the district court. We also deny Boyd’s
motions for appointment of counsel and return of property. We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
3
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
4