Tony DeLoach v. South Carolina Department of C, No. 09-7297 (4th Cir. 2009)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-7297 TONY DELOACH, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; BERNARD DAVID TARTARSKY; MS. HILL, IGC; JOHN AND JANE DOES, MCKIE; Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior District Judge. (4:08-cv-03113-HMH) Submitted: November 13, 2009 Decided: December 3, 2009 Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Tony DeLoach, Appellant Pro Se. Roy F. Laney, Heath McAlvin Stewart, III, RILEY, POPE & LANEY, LLC, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Tony DeLoach 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. recommended failure § 636(b)(1)(B) that to relief timely be (2006). denied file and specific The magistrate advised judge DeLoach objections that to this recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order based DeLoach upon failed the to recommendation. timely file Despite specific this warning, objections to the magistrate judge s report and 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. Cir. 1985); been warned of the consequences of Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). DeLoach 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 contentions are adequately 2 presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the 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.