Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-15-02103/USCOURTS-ca4-15-02103-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Rufus J. C. Anderson
Appellant
Greenville Hospital System
Appellee
South Carolina Department of Employment and Workforce
Appellee
South Carolina Department of Probation and Parole Board
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-2103

RUFUS JULIUS CORNELIUS ANDERSON,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

GREENVILLE HOSPITAL SYSTEM; SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF 

EMPLOYMENT AND WORKFORCE; SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF 

PROBATION AND PAROLE BOARD,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Greenville. Mary G. Lewis, District Judge. 

(6:15-cv-02556-MGL)

Submitted: December 17, 2015 Decided: December 21, 2015

Before DIAZ and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Rufus J. C. Anderson, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-2103 Doc: 15 Filed: 12/21/2015 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Rufus Julius Cornelius Anderson appeals the district 

court’s order denying relief on his employment discrimination

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 Anderson 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). Anderson has waived appellate 

review by failing to timely 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: 15-2103 Doc: 15 Filed: 12/21/2015 Pg: 2 of 2