Alexander v. Spartanburg Public Safety, No. 06-2014 (4th Cir. 2006)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-2014 RAY ALEXANDER, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus SPARTANBURG PUBLIC SAFETY DEPARTMENT; SC PUBLIC SAFETY DEPARTMENT, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Spartanburg. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District Judge. (7:06-cv-02085-HMH) Submitted: November 21, 2006 Decided: November 29, 2006 Before TRAXLER and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ray Alexander, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Ray Alexander, Jr. appeals the district court s order dismissing without prejudice his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. The district court referred this case to pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2000). a magistrate judge The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Alexander that failure to timely file specific objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the recommendation. Despite this warning, Alexander failed to file specific objections to the magistrate judge s 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 that failure to specifically object will waive appellate review. See Page v. Lee, 337 F.3d 411, 416 n.3 (4th Cir. 2003); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985). Wright v. Collins, Alexander has waived appellate review by failing to timely file specific objections after receiving proper notice. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. - 2 - We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED - 3 -

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.