David Washington v. Daryl Burns, No. 08-1924 (4th Cir. 2008)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-1924 DAVID J. WASHINGTON, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. DARYL L. BURNS, Marion County Magistrate; DIANE SCOTT; JUDGE BRISTOW; SHERIFF MARK RICHARDSON, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge. (4:08-cv-00316-RBH) Submitted: November 20, 2008 Decided: November 25, 2008 Before MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. David J. Washington, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: David J. Washington appeals the district court s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. The district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2000). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Washington that failure to file timely objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the recommendation. Despite this warning, Washington failed to file specific objections to the magistrate judge s recommendation. The magistrate timely judge s filing of specific recommendation is objections necessary to to a preserve appellate review of the substance of that recommendation when the parties have noncompliance. Cir. 1985); see been warned of the consequences of Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Washington has waived appellate review by failing to timely file specific objections after receiving proper notice. States v. Midgette, 478 F.3d 616, 622 (4th See United Cir. 2007). Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. deny Washington s motion for recusal, finding it meritless. 2 We We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal before contentions the court are adequately and argument presented would not in aid the the materials 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.
