Joseph Widemon v. Guilford County District Attor, No. 10-6180 (4th Cir. 2010)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-6180 JOSEPH WIDEMON, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. GUILFORD COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY S OFFICE, OVER DISTRICT #18; GUILFORD COUNTY OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER; GUILFORD COUNTY SHERIFF S DEPARTMENT OF DETENTION BUREAU, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. James A. Beaty, Jr., Chief District Judge. (1:09-cv-00746-JAB-PTS) Submitted: May 20, 2010 Decided: May 27, 2010 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Joseph Widemon, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Joseph Widemon dismissing without complaint. The appeals prejudice district the his court district 42 court s U.S.C. referred order § 1983 this (2006) case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2006). The magistrate judge recommended that Widemon s complaint be dismissed without prejudice and advised Widemon that failure to file objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the recommendation. The 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, see 766 Thomas v. Arn, F.2d 841, 474 U.S. 845-46 (4th 140 Cir. (1985). 1985); Widemon has also waived appellate review by failing to file 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.