Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-15-01963/USCOURTS-ca4-15-01963-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Randall Anderson
Appellee
Vicki Anderson
Appellee
L. Ruther
Appellant
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-1963

L. RUTHER,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

RANDALL ANDERSON; VICKI ANDERSON; STATE FARM MUTUAL 

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern 

District of West Virginia, at Wheeling. Frederick P. Stamp, 

Jr., Senior District Judge. (5:14-cv-00073-FPS-JES)

Submitted: December 15, 2015 Decided: December 17, 2015

Before GREGORY and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

L. Ruther, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-1963 Doc: 9 Filed: 12/17/2015 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

L. Ruther seeks to appeal the district court’s orders

dismissing his civil action and denying Ruther’s motion to 

recuse the magistrate judge. The district court referred this 

case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) 

(2012). In both orders, the magistrate judge recommended that 

relief be denied and advised Ruther 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). Ruther has waived appellate review 

by failing to file objections after receiving proper notice. 

Accordingly, we deny Ruther’s motions to proceed in forma 

pauperis and to stay, and dismiss the appeal.

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.

DISMISSED

Appeal: 15-1963 Doc: 9 Filed: 12/17/2015 Pg: 2 of 2