Sidney Harr v. State of North Carolina, No. 14-1887 (4th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-1887 SIDNEY B. HARR, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA; U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE THOMAS D. SCHROEDER; RICHARD H. BRODHEAD; DAVID F. LEVI; DUKE UNIVERSITY, Defendants – Appellees and MAGISTRATE P. TREVOR SHARP, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Catherine C. Eagles, District Judge. (1:13-cv-00673-CCE-JLW) Submitted: December 18, 2014 Decided: December 22, 2014 Before SHEDD, WYNN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Sidney B. Harr, Appellant Pro Se. Roy Cooper, Attorney General, Kathryn Hicks Shields, Assistant Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina; Joseph W. H. Mott, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Roanoke, Virginia; Christopher W. Jackson, Dixie Thomas Wells, ELLIS & WINTERS, LLP, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Sidney B. Harr appeals the district court’s orders granting Defendants’ motions to dismiss his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint against filed motion to rescind. them, and denying his subsequently The district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) (2012). The magistrate judge recommended that Defendants’ motions to dismiss be granted and advised Harr that failure to file timely objections to the 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. been warned of the consequences of Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315-16 (4th Cir. 2005); Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985). Harr waived appellate review by failing to file objections after receiving proper notice. In addition, we agree with the district court that Harr’s motion to rescind was meritless. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s orders. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 3 presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 4
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.
