Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-16-06383/USCOURTS-ca4-16-06383-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 

---

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-6383

CALVIN LYNDALE GADDY, a/k/a Calvin L. Gaddy,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS OFFICE OF GENERAL 

COUNSEL; WARDEN JOSEPH MCFADDEN; ASSOCIATE WARDEN 

BLACKWELL, All of Under Color of State Laws,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Anderson. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., Senior 

District Judge. (8:15-cv-02772-JFA)

Submitted: July 28, 2016 Decided: August 2, 2016

Before MOTZ and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Calvin Lyndale Gaddy, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-6383 Doc: 11 Filed: 08/02/2016 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Calvin Lyndale Gaddy appeals the district court’s order 

denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint. The 

district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant 

to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2012). The magistrate judge 

recommended that relief be denied and advised Gaddy that failure 

to file timely, specific objections to this recommendation could 

waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the 

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). Gaddy has waived appellate review 

by failing to 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 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

Appeal: 16-6383 Doc: 11 Filed: 08/02/2016 Pg: 2 of 2