Henry Gilchrist v. South Carolina Highway Patrol, No. 12-1168 (4th Cir. 2012)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-1168 HENRY FLOYD GILCHRIST, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. SOUTH CAROLINA HIGHWAY PATROL; GREENVILLE CASUALITY INSURANCE COMPANY INC.; VITALIY PIPENKO; V Y EXPRESS INC., a/k/a Vera Vitalyevn Pipenko; STATE AUTO INSURANCE COMPANIES; JACKIE PAGE; MARY BLACK HOSPITAL; ALLSTATE FIRE AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY; GEROD ALLISON, Allstate Agency, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Spartanburg. Timothy M. Cain, District Judge. (7:11-cv-03129-TMC) Submitted: April 26, 2012 Decided: May 3, 2012 Before GREGORY, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Henry Floyd Gilchrist, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Henry court s order Floyd Gilchrist denying complaint. The relief district seeks on his court to appeal 42 the U.S.C. referred district § 1983 this (2006) case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 636(b)(1)(B) (West 2006 & Supp. 2011). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Gilchrist that the failure to file timely and 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); Gilchrist warned of the consequences of Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th see has been also waived Thomas v. appellate Arn, 474 review U.S. by 140 failing specific objections after receiving proper notice. (1985). to file Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal. 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. DISMISSED 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.