Reginald Evans v. Sumter County, No. 08-8397 (4th Cir. 2010)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-8397 REGINALD D. EVANS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. SUMTER COUNTY, South Carolina; CITY OF SUMTER, SOUTH CAROLINA; PATTY J. PATTERSON, Chief of Sumter Police; SUMTER POLICE DEPARTMENT; SUMTER-LEE REGIONAL DETENTION CENTER, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., District Judge. (3:07-cv-02688-JFA-JRM) Submitted: December 17, 2009 Decided: January 6, 2010 Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Reginald D. Evans, Appellant Pro Se. Alfred Johnston Cox, ELLIS, LAWHORNE & SIMS, PA, Columbia, South Carolina; James M. Davis, Jr., DAVIDSON & LINDEMANN, PA, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Reginald D. Evans appeals the district court s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint. The district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2006). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Evans that failure to file timely objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review recommendation. of a district court order based upon the Despite this warning, Evans failed to object 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 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). Evans 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 the court are adequately and argument presented would not in aid the the materials 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.