Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-14-02082/USCOURTS-ca4-14-02082-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Clerk of Court
Appellee
Guilford County Court
Appellee
Johnathan Keeler
Appellee
Leon Ratliff
Appellant
Jan H. Samet
Appellee
Jaqueline Vann
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-2082

LEON RATLIFF,

 Plaintiff – Appellant,

v.

GUILFORD COUNTY COURT; JAQUELINE VANN; JOHNATHAN KEELER; 

CLERK OF COURT; JUDGE JAN H. SAMET,

 Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle 

District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Catherine C. Eagles, 

District Judge. (1:14-cv-00760-CCE-LPA)

Submitted: January 15, 2015 Decided: January 20, 2015

Before WILKINSON and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Leon Ratliff, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-2082 Doc: 8 Filed: 01/20/2015 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Leon Ratliff appeals the district court’s order 

dismissing his complaint as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(e)(2) (2012). 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 Ratliff that failure to file timely 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). 

Ratliff 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 this court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process.

AFFIRMED

Appeal: 14-2082 Doc: 8 Filed: 01/20/2015 Pg: 2 of 2