Lawrence Paulin, Jr. v. Ray Nash, No. 09-6473 (4th Cir. 2009)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-6473 LAWRENCE CORNELIUS PAULIN, JR., a/k/a Lawrence C Paulin, Plaintiff Appellant, v. RAY NASH, Sheriff, Defendant Appellee. No. 09-6474 LAWRENCE CORNELIUS PAULIN, JR., Plaintiff Appellant, v. FRANKLIN SMITH, former Chief Jailer, Defendant Appellee. Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., Senior District Judge. (6:07-cv-03753-GRA; 6:08-cv-00067-GRA) Submitted: July 23, 2009 Decided: July 29, 2009 Before WILKINSON and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Lawrence Cornelius Paulin, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. William J. Thrower, STUCKEY LAW OFFICES, PA, Charleston, South Carolina; for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: In these consolidated appeals, Lawrence Cornelius Paulin, Jr., appeals the district court s orders dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) actions. the cases to § 636(b)(1)(B) a magistrate (2006). The district court referred judge, The pursuant magistrate to 28 judge U.S.C. recommended granting Defendants summary judgment motions in the respective actions, and advised Paulin that failure to file timely and specific objections to the recommendations could waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the recommendations. Despite this warning, and despite receiving extensions of time to file his objections, Paulin failed to file objections to the magistrate judge s recommendations. 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 Wright warned v. of Collins, the 766 consequences F.2d 841, of 845-47 (4th Cir. 1985); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 147-48 (1985). Paulin has waived appellate review by failing to file objections affirm the after receiving district court s proper notice. orders. Paulin Accordingly, v. Nash, we No. 6:07-cv-03753-GRA (D.S.C. Feb. 17, 2009); Paulin v. Smith, No. 6:08-cv-00067-GRA (D.S.C. Feb. 18, 2009). 3 We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 4
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.
