Thomas Switzer v. John Thomas, No. 13-1411 (4th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-1411 THOMAS L. SWITZER, Plaintiff Appellant, v. JOHN THOMAS, Sheriff; GORDON CROSEN, Deputy; MIKE ATKINS, Deputy Captain; BRUCE WRIGHT, Lieutenant Deputy; DONALD DURROUGHS, Deputy; JASON ALSHIRE, Deputy; DEPUTY LIEUTENANT KITE, Retired; ANNETTE WEAVER, Jail Nurse; ALL EMPLOYED BY THE PAGE COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Harrisonburg. Michael F. Urbanski, District Judge. (5:12-cv-00056-MFU-JGW) Submitted: July 25, 2013 Decided: July 29, 2013 Before GREGORY, DAVIS, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Thomas L. Switzer, Appellant Pro Se. Wade Travis Anderson, John Chadwick Johnson, FRITH, ANDERSON & PEAKE, PC, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Thomas L. Switzer appeals the district court s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge, denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint, and imposing a prefiling injunction. reversible error. We have reviewed the record and find no Accordingly, we affirm substantially for the reasons stated by the district court. Switzer v. Thomas, No. 5:12-cv-00056-MFU-JGW (W.D. Va. Mar. 19, 2013). In addition, we note that Switzer s informal brief on appeal raises claims that were not raised in his objections to the magistrate judge s report. case to a magistrate The district court referred this judge pursuant § 636(b)(1)(B) (West 2006 & Supp. 2013). recommended failure that to relief file be denied timely, and specific to 28 U.S.C.A. The magistrate judge advised Switzer objections that 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); see been warned of the consequences of Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Switzer has waived appellate review of several of his claims by 2 failing to file specific objections after receiving proper notice. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. legal before We dispense with oral argument because the facts and contentions the court are adequately and argument presented would not in aid the the materials decisional process. AFFIRMED 3
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.
