Tisdale v. Administrator of Loris, No. 06-6629 (4th Cir. 2006)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-6629 CLAYTON HOWARD TISDALE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus ADMINISTRATOR OF LORIS COMMUNITY HOSPITAL; THE SOUTH CAROLINA HIGHWAY PATROL; R. DALE TREVATHAN, Officer, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Beaufort. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., District Judge. (9:06-cv-00138-GRA) Submitted: August 31, 2006 Decided: September 7, 2006 Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Clayton Howard Tisdale, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Clayton Howard Tisdale 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 Tisdale that failure to file timely objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review recommendation. of a district court order based upon the Despite this warning, Tisdale failed to object 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 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). Tisdale has waived appellate review by failing to timely file specific 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 the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED - 2 -

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.