John Baccus v. Sargeant Wilson, No. 09-6032 (4th Cir. 2009)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-6032 JOHN ROOSEVELT BACCUS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. SARGEANT WILSON; LIEUTENANT STEWART; MAJOR MONTEL; SERGEANT JONES; STAN BURTT, Warden; EMRHEIN, JR.; BLOWE; MS. JENKINS; WILLIAMS; WALKER, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Beaufort. David C. Norton, Chief District Judge. (9:08-cv-00326-DCN) Submitted: June 22, 2009 Decided: June 29, 2009 Before MICHAEL, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. John Roosevelt Baccus, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: John Roosevelt Baccus appeals the district court s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) 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 Baccus 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, Baccus failed to object 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). Baccus has waived appellate review by failing to timely file specific objections after receiving proper notice. affirm the judgment of the district court. Accordingly, we We deny Baccus s motions for appointment of counsel and summary disposition. 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.