Thomas Davis v. Christine Wilson, No. 13-6668 (4th Cir. 2013)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-6668 THOMAS LOUIS DAVIS, Rev, Plaintiff Appellant, v. CHRISTINE WILSON; JAMES BUKOFFSKY; BRIAN CHAPMAN; ANTHONY DORE; LARRY WEIDNER; ERIC ERICKSON; STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; MATTHEW FRIEDMAN, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., Senior District Judge. (9:13-cv-00382-GRA) Submitted: August 29, 2013 Decided: September 4, 2013 Before DUNCAN, AGEE, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Thomas Louis Davis, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Thomas Louis Davis appeals the district court s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on Davis s civil complaint. and find no reversible error. case to a magistrate We have reviewed the record The district court referred this judge pursuant § 636(b)(1)(B) (West 2006 & Supp. 2013). to 28 U.S.C.A. The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Davis that failure to file timely, specific objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the recommendation. Despite this warning, Davis 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 noncompliance. have 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). Davis has waived appellate review of his claims by failing to file specific objections after receiving proper notice. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. legal We dispense with oral argument because the facts and contentions are adequately 2 presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 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.