Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-15-07513/USCOURTS-ca4-15-07513-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Attorney General of South Carolina
Appellee
Division of Appellate Defense, The
Appellee
Samuel Lamont Whitner
Appellant

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-7513

SAMUEL LAMONT WHITNER,

 Plaintiff – Appellant,

v.

DIVISION OF APPELLATE DEFENSE, THE; OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY 

GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA,

 Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Greenville. Cameron McGowan Currie, Senior

District Judge. (6:15-cv-01779-CMC)

Submitted: February 23, 2016 Decided: February 25, 2016

Before MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Samuel Lamont Whitner, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-7513 Doc: 13 Filed: 02/25/2016 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Samuel Lamont Whitner appeals the district court’s order 

denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) 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 relief be denied and advised Whitner that 

failure to file timely specific written 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). Whitner 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: 15-7513 Doc: 13 Filed: 02/25/2016 Pg: 2 of 2