Anthony James v. Lt. June, No. 08-8327 (4th Cir. 2009)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-8327 ANTHONY JAMES, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. LT. JUNE, Officer of Lee Correctional Institution; HANCOCK, Officer of Lee Correctional Institution, LT. Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District Judge. (4:08-cv-00058-HMH) Submitted: April 23, 2009 Decided: May 1, 2009 Before MICHAEL, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Anthony James, Appellant Pro Se. Bradford Cary Andrews, Samuel F. Arthur, III, AIKEN, BRIDGES, NUNN, ELLIOTT & TYLER, PA, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Anthony James seeks to appeal 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 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2006). judge The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised James 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, James failed to file specific objections to the magistrate judge s recommendation. The magistrate timely judge s filing of recommendation specific is objections necessary to to a preserve appellate review of the substance of that recommendation when the parties noncompliance. have been warned of the consequences of See United States v. Midgette, 478 F.3d 616, 621-22 (4th Cir. 2007); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985). James has waived appellate review by failing to specific objections after receiving proper notice. we dismiss the appeal. timely file Accordingly, We deny James s motion for appointment of counsel. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 2 presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 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.