Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

920 F.2d 926

Docket No. 90-7385.

Coker v. Witkowski

Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals

Submitted Dec. 3, 1990. Decided Dec. 17, 1990.

Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 1990-12-17

Cited by 24 later decisions — most recently December 1990

22 federal appellate ·

Applies 28 U.S.C. § 636 · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))

Relies on Wright v. Collins · Cleveland Board of Education v. Loudermill · Ford v. Wainwright

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Opinion by Per Curiam · Decided 1990-12-17

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. Solomon Blatt, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CA-90-579)

Elford Guy Coker, appellant pro se.

Larry Lee Plumblee, Greenville, S.C., for appellees.

D.S.C.

AFFIRMED.

Before K.K. HALL, MURNAGHAN and WILKINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

¶1

Elford Guy Coker appeals the district court's order dismissing this 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 action. Appellant's action was referred to a magistrate pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 636(b)(1)(B). The magistrate recommended that relief be denied and advised appellant that the failure to file timely objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the recommendation. Despite this warning, appellant failed to object to the magistrate's recommendation.

¶2

This Court has held that the timely filing of objections to a magistrate's recommendation is necessary to preserve appellate review of the substance of that recommendation where the parties have been warned that failure to object will waive appellate review. Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 846 (4th Cir.1985) (quoting Carr v. Hutto, 737 F.2d 433, 434 (4th Cir.1984), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 1019 (1985)). See generally United States v. Schronce, 727 F.2d 91 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 467 U.S. 1208 (1984). Appellant has waived appellate review by failing to file objections after receiving proper notice. We accordingly 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.

¶3

AFFIRMED.

/920/f2d/926 · .json · Public domain