Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-16-02303/USCOURTS-ca4-16-02303-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Anthony Parker
Appellant
Schaeffler Group USA
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-2303

ANTHONY PARKER,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

SCHAEFFLER GROUP USA,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Rock Hill. David C. Norton, District Judge. 

(0:15-cv-00521-DCN)

Submitted: February 16, 2017 Decided: February 21, 2017

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, DUNCAN, Circuit Judge, and HAMILTON, 

Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Anthony Parker, Appellant Pro Se. Katherine Dudley Helms, 

Christopher Ray Thomas, OGLETREE DEAKINS NASH SMOAK & STEWART, PC, 

Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-2303 Doc: 10 Filed: 02/21/2017 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Anthony Parker appeals the district court’s order accepting 

the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing his 

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 the complaint be dismissed and advised

Parker 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). Parker has waived appellate review by failing to 

file timely 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: 16-2303 Doc: 10 Filed: 02/21/2017 Pg: 2 of 2