James Mayer v. William Brandstetter, II et al, No. 09-2084 (4th Cir. 2009)

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-2084 JAMES PAUL MAYER, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. WILLIAM A. BRANDSTETTER, II; MARIAN M. HOLLERAN; JOHN HOLLERAN; RICHARD GEORGE MAYER; EILEEN WAGNER; CAROL SCHARER; DONALD SCHARER; LAURA DALY; GAIL ROBERTSON; JESSICA HUTCHISON; LAWRENCE J. O'TOOLE, Judge; ANGELEA ALLEN MITAS; MARK G. WEITZMAN; OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY; REGIS J. SCHNIPPERT, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (7:09-cv-00123-BO) Submitted: November 19, 2009 Decided: December 1, 2009 Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James Paul Mayer, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: James Paul Mayer appeals the district court s order denying relief on his civil complaint. The district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ยง 636(b)(1)(B) (2006). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Mayer that failure to file timely and specific appellate objections review of recommendation. a to this district Despite this recommendation court could order Mayer warning, based failed waive upon the 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 of Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Mayer 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 before contentions the court are adequately and argument presented would not in aid the the materials 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.