Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-15-01882/USCOURTS-ca4-15-01882-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Butch Johnson
Appellant
Palmetto Citizens Federal Credit Union
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-1882

BUTCH JOHNSON,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

PALMETTO CITIZENS FEDERAL CREDIT UNION,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Columbia. Terry L. Wooten, Chief District 

Judge. (3:14-cv-01568-TLW)

Submitted: November 19, 2015 Decided: November 23, 2015

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Butch Johnson, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-1882 Doc: 8 Filed: 11/23/2015 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Butch Johnson appeals the district court’s order adopting 

the magistrate judge’s recommendation to dismiss, after a 28 

U.S.C. § 1915 (2012) review, Johnson’s claims alleging breach of 

contract and unfair trade practices by Palmetto Citizens Federal 

Credit Union. We affirm.

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). Moreover, we limit our review to 

the issues raised in the appellant’s informal brief. See 4th 

Cir. R. 34(b). Johnson waived appellate review of the district 

court’s dispositive holdings by failing to file specific 

objections to the magistrate judge’s recommendation after 

receiving proper notice, and by failing to challenge the 

district court’s dispositive holdings in his informal brief. 

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. 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: 15-1882 Doc: 8 Filed: 11/23/2015 Pg: 2 of 2