Case ID: f-appx_22/html/0147-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

William E. ALTON, III, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Polly A. SOCKS, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 01-7086.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted Nov. 8, 2001.
    Decided Nov. 16, 2001.
    
      William E. Alton, III, pro se.
    Randolph Stuart Sergent, Office of the Attorney General of Maryland, Baltimore, MD, for appellee.
    Before WILKINS, MICHAEL and KING, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM.

William E. Alton, III, appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp.2001) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion accepting the magistrate judge’s recommendation, made after an evidentiary hearing, and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Alton v. Socks, No. CA-98-2761 AW (D. Md. filed May 30, 2001; entered May 31, 2001). 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. 
      
       Alton, who was represented by counsel in the district court, failed to file objections to the magistrate judge's report in the time afforded him by the district court, waiving review of the magistrate judge's report by both the district court and this court. See Wells v. Shriners Hosp., 109 F.3d 198, 200-01 (4th Cir. 1997). Notwithstanding this failure, the district court conducted a de novo review and denied relief on the merits.