Nathanael Reynolds v. Johnson, No. 16-7025 (4th Cir. 2016)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-7025 NATHANAEL LENARD REYNOLDS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. CHIEF DEPUTY DUDLEY MUSIER; OFFICER WATSON, Defendants – Appellees, and SHERIFF MICHAEL JOHNSON, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Aiken. Mary G. Lewis, District Judge. (1:15-cv-00388-MGL) Submitted: November 18, 2016 Decided: November 23, 2016 Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Nathanael Lenard Reynolds, Appellant Pro Se. Edgar Willcox, II, WILLCOX BUYCK & WILLIAMS, PA, Florence, Carolina, for Appellees. Lloyd South Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Nathanael Lenard Reynolds appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint. The district court referred this case to a pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2012). magistrate judge The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Reynolds 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). review by notice. failing to file Reynolds has waived appellate objections after receiving proper Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. 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. The motion for preparation of a transcript at government expense is denied. 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.