Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-08-01038/USCOURTS-ca4-08-01038-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 470
Nature of Suit: Civil (Rico)
Cause of Action: 

---

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-1014

EARL ROBERT MERRITT, JR., 

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

LUCY FLORENCE COCHRAN-YOUELL; REVEREND FATHER PAUL FAHEY,

deceased; REVEREND FATHER ALBERT ALEXANDEUNAS, Pastor;

REVEREND FATHER COLIN DONOHUE O.F.M. CAPUCHIN; REVEREND FATHER

EDWARD SADIE, Pastor; BISHOP MICHAEL BRANSFIELD; FATHER JOHN

GALLAGHER; FATHER FRED ANNIE; REVEREND FATHER JOHN

PFANNENSTIEL; EMINENCE CARDINAL WILLIAM KEELER; JOSEPH

RATZINGER, aka His Holines Pope Benedict XVI, The Holy See,

Vatican City Rome, Italy: and all Other Aiding and Abetting

These Defendants and Racketeers; SAINT JOHN'S ROMAN CATHOLIC

CHURCH; SACRED HEART ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH; THE ROMAN CATHOLIC

DIOCESE; THE CAPUCHIN-FRANCISCAN ORDER; THE ROMAN CATHOLIC

ARCH-DIOCESE; THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH, 

Defendants - Appellees.

No. 08-1038

EARL ROBERT MERRITT, JR., 

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

LUCY FLORENCE COCHRAN-YOUELL, aka Tiny; LINDA YOUELL-TAYLOR;

Appeal: 08-1038 Doc: 11 Filed: 03/10/2008 Pg: 1 of 4
- 2 -

DONALD TAYLOR; JONATHAN YOUELL, aka Jon; SHERRY YOUELL; ANNE

YOUNELL-NELSON; THOMAS YOUELL, aka Tom; BRANDON YOUELL; MANDY

YOUELL; OSCAR LEE COCHRAN; JOYCE WINFREE-HESS, aka Teddie;

THOMAS W. SMITH, Esquire; PATTY J. SIMS; LAWRENCE B. KELLY;

CARDINAL WILLIAM KEELER; BISHOP MICHAEL BRANSFIELD; FATHER

EDWARD SADIE; FATHER ALBERT ALEXANDEUNAS, and all others

aiding and abetting these defendants and racketeers; OFFICE OF

THE WEST VIRGINIA STATE SENATOR JEFFREY V. KESSLER; THE SAINT

JOHN'S CATHOLIC CHURCH IN BELLE, WEST VIRGINIA; THE SACRED

HEART CATHOLIC CHURCH IN CHARLESTON, WV; THE ROMAN CATHOLIC

DIOCESE IN WHEELING, WEST VIRGINIA; UNITED STATES DISTRICT

COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA; THE ROMAN

CATHOLIC ARCH-DIOCESE FOR THE STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA IN

BALTIMORE, MARYLAND,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Southern

District of West Virginia, at Charleston. John T. Copenhaver, Jr.,

District Judge. (2:07-cv-00041; 2:06-cv-00885)

Submitted: February 28, 2008 Decided: March 10, 2008

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Earl Robert Merritt, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 08-1038 Doc: 11 Filed: 03/10/2008 Pg: 2 of 4
*In his documents, filed as an objections, Merritt states that

“[l]ife is to [sic] short . . . to be spending my time that I have

left to write an Objection to an Order that is legally inept and

asinine.” (R. 29, No. 08-1014; R. 32, No. 08-1038). 

- 3 -

PER CURIAM:

In this consolidated appeal, Earl Robert Merritt, Jr.,

appeals the district court’s orders dismissing his civil actions.

The district court referred the cases to a magistrate judge

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2000). The magistrate judge

recommended that relief be denied and advised Merritt that failure

to file timely and specific objections to the recommendations could

waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the

recommendation. Despite this warning Merritt failed to file

specific objections* to the magistrate judge’s recommendations.

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, 845-47 (4th Cir. 1985); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474

U.S. 140, 147-48 (1985). A district court need not conduct de novo

review “when a party makes general and conclusory objections that

do not direct the court to a specific error in the magistrate’s

proposed findings and recommendations.” Orpiano v. Johnson, 687

F.2d 44, 47 (4th Cir. 1982) (citations omitted); see also Howard v.

Secretary of Health & Human Servs., 932 F.2d 505, 508-09 (6th Cir.

Appeal: 08-1038 Doc: 11 Filed: 03/10/2008 Pg: 3 of 4
- 4 -

1991) (noting that general objections to a magistrate judge’s

report may be insufficient to preserve appellate review). Merritt

has waived appellate review by failing to file specific objections

after receiving proper notice. Accordingly, we deny Merritt’s

motions for appointment of counsel and affirm the judgments 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

Appeal: 08-1038 Doc: 11 Filed: 03/10/2008 Pg: 4 of 4