Anthony Parker v. Schaeffler Group USA, No. 16-2303 (4th Cir. 2017)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-2303 ANTHONY PARKER, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. SCHAEFFLER GROUP USA, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock Hill. David C. Norton, District Judge. (0:15-cv-00521-DCN) Submitted: February 16, 2017 Decided: February 21, 2017 Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, DUNCAN, Circuit Judge, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Anthony Parker, Appellant Pro Se. Katherine Dudley Helms, Christopher Ray Thomas, OGLETREE DEAKINS NASH SMOAK & STEWART, PC, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Anthony Parker appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing his complaint. The district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2012). The magistrate judge recommended that the complaint be dismissed and advised Parker that failure to file timely objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the recommendation. The timely filing of specific objections to a magistrate judge’s recommendation is necessary to preserve appellate review of the substance of that recommendation when the parties have been warned of the consequences of noncompliance. Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). file timely Parker has waived appellate review by failing to objections after receiving proper notice. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 2

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.