L. Ruther v. Randall Anderson, No. 15-1963 (4th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-1963 L. RUTHER, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. RANDALL ANDERSON; VICKI ANDERSON; AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, STATE FARM MUTUAL Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Wheeling. Frederick P. Stamp, Jr., Senior District Judge. (5:14-cv-00073-FPS-JES) Submitted: December 15, 2015 Before GREGORY Circuit Judge. and FLOYD, Decided: Circuit Judges, December 17, 2015 and DAVIS, Senior Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. L. Ruther, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: L. Ruther dismissing his seeks to appeal civil action recuse the magistrate judge. the and district denying court’s Ruther’s orders motion to The district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2012). In both orders, the magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Ruther that failure to file timely objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the recommendation. The timely filing of specific objections to a magistrate judge’s recommendation is necessary to preserve appellate review of the substance of that recommendation when the parties have been warned of the consequences of noncompliance. Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Ruther has waived appellate review by failing to file objections after receiving proper notice. Accordingly, we deny Ruther’s motions to proceed in forma pauperis and to stay, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the 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.
