Anthony Holmes v. Burris Liquor Store, Inc., No. 14-1133 (4th Cir. 2014)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-1133 ANTHONY HOLMES, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. BURRIS LIQUOR STORE, INC., Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. David C. Norton, District Judge. (2:12-cv-01866-DCN-BHH) Submitted: May 22, 2014 Decided: May 28, 2014 Before HAMILTON and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Anthony Holmes, Appellant Pro Se. Joshua Drew Cagle, Caroline Wrenn Cleveland, Bob J. Conley, CLEVELAND & CONLEY, LLC, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. The opinion is filed by a quorum pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 46(d). PER CURIAM: Anthony Holmes seeks to appeal the district court s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief of Holmes complaint filed pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Right Act of 1964. this case to § 636(b)(1)(B) granting Holmes a magistrate (2012). Defendant s that The district court referred judge The pursuant magistrate motion for summary to file timely failure to judge 28 U.S.C. recommended judgment and objections advised to the recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the recommendation. The timely filing of objections to a magistrate judge s recommendation is necessary to preserve appellate review of the substance Midgette, 478 of F.3d that 616, recommendation. 621 22 (4th Cir. United States v. 2007); Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845 46 (4th Cir. 1985); see also Thomas v. Arn, notice 474 of U.S. the 140, 155 consequences (1985). of a Because failure to Holmes received object to the magistrate judge s report and yet failed to do so, he has waived appellate review. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. legal We dispense with oral argument because the facts and contentions are adequately 2 presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the 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.