Gary Waiters v. Dr. Cro, No. 11-6166 (4th Cir. 2011)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-6166 GARY WAITERS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. DR. CROSS; MR. BENJAMIN; MRS. SPIKE; MR. QUMBLEY, official and individual capacities, MARSHALL; MR. Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. J. Michelle Childs, District Judge. (3:09-cv-02686-JMC) Submitted: May 19, 2011 Before TRAXLER, Judges. Chief Decided: Judge, and AGEE and May 24, 2011 KEENAN, Circuit Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Gary Waiters, Appellant Pro Se. Marshall Hodges Waldron, Jr., GRIFFITH & SADLER, PA, Beaufort, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Gary Waiters 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.A. § 636(b)(1)(B) (West 2006 & Supp. 2010). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Waiters that failure to timely file specific objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the 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). Waiters 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.