George Milton, Jr. v. Officer Wilson, No. 08-8462 (4th Cir. 2009)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-8462 GEORGE THOMAS MILTON, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, v. OFFICER WILSON; CAPTAIN A. THOMAS; LIEUTENANT MARGARET BELL, Associate Warden; OFFICER GOODEN, RICHSON; Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District Judge. (2:07-cv-03921-HMH) Submitted: March 12, 2009 Before MOTZ and Circuit Judge. SHEDD, Decided: Circuit Judges, and March 18, 2009 HAMILTON, Senior Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. George Thomas Milton, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Walker Heinitsh Willcox, WILLCOX, BUYCK & WILLIAMS, PA, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: George Thomas Milton, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court s order dismissing 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) (2006). The magistrate judge recommended that summary judgment be granted for the Defendants and advised Milton that failure to file specific and timely objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the recommendation. Despite this warning, Milton 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 have noncompliance. been warned of the consequences Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). has waived objections of appellate after review receiving by proper failing to notice. file Milton specific Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal. 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. DISMISSED 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.
