Elvin Watkins v. Bob Roberts, No. 14-1542 (4th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-1542 ELVIN CLIFFORD WATKINS, Plaintiff Appellant, v. BOB ROBERTS, Director and Chief of Police, West Virginia University, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. Gina M. Groh, District Judge. (3:14-cv-00009-GMG-JES) Submitted: September 23, 3014 Before NIEMEYER and Senior Circuit Judge. GREGORY, Decided: Circuit September 25, 2014 Judges, and HAMILTON, Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Elvin Clifford Watkins, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Shawn Kleeh, Joseph Umberto Leonoro, STEPTOE & JOHNSON, PLLC, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Elvin Clifford Watkins seeks to appeal the district court s order denying complaint. The relief district on his court 42 U.S.C. referred § 1983 this (2012) case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2012). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Watkins that failure to file timely objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the recommendation. The magistrate timely judge s filing of specific recommendation is objections necessary to to a preserve appellate review of the substance of that recommendation when the parties have noncompliance. Cir. 1985); Watkins has been warned of the consequences of Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th see also waived Thomas v. appellate Arn, 474 review by objections after receiving proper notice. U.S. 140 failing (1985). to file Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss the appeal. We deny Watkins motion to strike the Appellee s informal reply brief. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 2 presented in the materials before this 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.
