J. D. v. Kanawha County Board of Educat, No. 10-1031 (4th Cir. 2010)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-1031 J.D., a disabled minor, by and with his next friend; MARK E. DAVIS, Petitioners Appellants, v. KANAWHA COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION, Respondent Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Charleston. Joseph R. Goodwin, Chief District Judge. (2:09-cv-00139) Submitted: April 22, 2010 Decided: April 27, 2010 Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and KING and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. J.D., Mark E. Davis, Appellants Pro Se. Vaughn Sizemore, BAILEY & WYANT, PLLC, Charleston, West Virginia, James W. Withrow, KANAWHA COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Petitioners J.D. and Mark Davis appeal the district court's order adopting the magistrate judge s recommendation to grant Respondent s summary judgment motion on their civil action seeking to set aside a state hearing officer decision denying Davis s request for a continuance of a due process hearing under the Individuals with Disabilities §§ 1400-1482 (West 2010). to a magistrate (2006). The judge Education Act, 20 U.S.C.A. The district court referred this case pursuant magistrate to judge 28 U.S.C. recommended § 636(b)(1)(B) that Respondent s summary judgment motion be granted and advised Petitioners that failure to file timely and specific objections to this recommendation would waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the recommendation. Despite this warning, Petitioners failed to file objections to the magistrate judge's recommendation and Respondent has moved to dismiss Petitioners appeal. 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. Cir. 1985); Petitioners see have been warned of the consequences of Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th also waived Thomas v. appellate 2 Arn, 474 review by U.S. 140 failing (1985). to file objections after receiving proper notice. Respondent s dispense with motion oral and dismiss argument Accordingly, we grant Petitioners because the appeal. facts and We legal contentions are adequately 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.
