George Grant, Jr. v. David Crenshaw, No. 09-7748 (4th Cir. 2009)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-7748 GEORGE GRANT, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, v. DAVID CRENSHAW; JOEY PRESTON; CHRISSY T. ADAMS, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Beaufort. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., Senior District Judge. (9:08-cv-02696-GRA) Submitted: December 15, 2009 Decided: December 22, 2009 Before MICHAEL and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. George Grant, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. James Victor McDade, DOYLE, O ROURKE, TATE & MCDADE, PA, Anderson, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: George Grant 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 Grant that failure to file timely, specific objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the recommendation. Despite this warning, Grant failed to make specific objections 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 Wright warned v. of Collins, the 766 consequences F.2d 841, of 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Grant 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 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.