Theodore Wagner v. Monica Hampton, No. 14-1876 (4th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-1876 THEODORE THOMAS WAGNER, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. OFFICER MONICA HAMPTON, all in their Individual and Official Capacity; OFFICER RUTH DAUGHERTY, all in their Individual and Official Capacity; OFFICER DONALD SIMMONS, all in their Individual and Official Capacity; LA TOSHIA SPEARING, all in their Individual and Official Capacity; PAYCOMPUTERMONITORING.COM, all in their Individual and Official Capacity, Defendants – Appellees, NATIONAL CHILD PROTECTION TRAINING CENTER, Movant – Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., Senior District Judge. (2:13-cv-02406-GRA) Submitted: December 18, 2014 Decided: December 22, 2014 Before SHEDD, WYNN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Theodore Thomas Wagner, Appellant Bowens, Assistant United States Pro Se. Attorney, Barbara Murcier Columbia, South Carolina; Jenna Kiziah McGee, PARKER, POE, ADAMS & BERNSTEIN, LLC, Charleston, South Carolina; John Francis Kuppens, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Theodore Thomas Wagner appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint. The district court referred this case to a magistrate pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2012). judge The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Wagner that failure to timely file specific 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. 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). Wagner has waived appellate review by failing to timely file specific objections after receiving proper notice. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal before contentions this court are adequately and argument presented would not in aid the the materials 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.
