Calvin Gaddy v. US District Court Columbia, No. 18-6954 (4th Cir. 2018)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 18-6954 CALVIN LYNDALE GADDY, a/k/a Calvin L. Gaddy, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. U.S. DISTRICT COURT COLUMBIA; S.C. ATTORNEY GENERAL’S OFFICE; CLERK OF COURT JEFF HAMMOND; MRS. JACQUELYN D. AUSTIN; S.C. STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr.; Senior District Judge. (0:18-cv-01445-JFA) Submitted: December 18, 2018 Decided: December 21, 2018 Before AGEE, THACKER, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Calvin Lyndale Gaddy, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Calvin Lyndale Gaddy appeals the district court’s order dismissing as frivolous his complaint filed pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012). 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 relief be denied and advised Gaddy that failure to file timely, specific 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). Gaddy has waived appellate review by failing to 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 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.