Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-10-06180/USCOURTS-ca4-10-06180-0/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UNPUBLISHED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. 10-6180

JOSEPH WIDEMON,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

GUILFORD COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, OVER DISTRICT 

#18; GUILFORD COUNTY OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER; 

GUILFORD COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT OF DETENTION BUREAU,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle 

District of North Carolina, at Durham. James A. Beaty, Jr., 

Chief District Judge. (1:09-cv-00746-JAB-PTS)

Submitted: May 20, 2010 Decided: May 27, 2010

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Joseph Widemon, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 10-6180 Doc: 15 Filed: 05/27/2010 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Joseph Widemon appeals the district court’s order 

dismissing without prejudice his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) 

complaint. 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 Widemon’s complaint be 

dismissed without prejudice and advised Widemon that failure to 

file objections to this recommendation could waive appellate 

review of a district court order based upon the recommendation.

The 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). Widemon has waived 

appellate review by failing to file 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 the court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process.

AFFIRMED

Appeal: 10-6180 Doc: 15 Filed: 05/27/2010 Pg: 2 of 2