William Pizarro v. McDonald's Restaurant, No. 12-1869 (4th Cir. 2012)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-1869 WILLIAM N. PIZARRO, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. MCDONALD'S RESTAURANT; JOSELIN CABRERA; JOHN DOE; JANE DOE; BETOR FOODS INC.; GALLAGHER BASSET SERVICES INC.; SPARTA INSURANCE; MCDONALD'S CORPORATION, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. J. Michelle Childs, District Judge. (6:12-cv-01440-JMC) Submitted: December 20, 2012 Decided: December 26, 2012 Before KING and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. William N. Pizarro, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: William N. Pizarro appeals the district court s order transferring his civil action to the United Court for the District of Massachusetts. States District The district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 636(b)(1)(B) (West 2006 & Supp. 2012). recommended that relief be denied and The magistrate judge advised Pizarro that failure to file timely objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the recommendation. The magistrate timely judge s filing of specific recommendation is objections necessary to to a preserve appellate review of the substance of that recommendation when the parties have 1985); Pizarro see has objections warned of the consequences of Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th noncompliance. Cir. been also waived after Thomas v. appellate receiving Arn, 474 review by proper U.S. 140 failing notice. (1985). to file Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal before contentions this 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.