William Burnett v. Bryan Stirling, No. 17-7564 (4th Cir. 2018)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-7564 WILLIAM LEON BURNETT, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. BRYAN P. STIRLING; MICHAEL MCCALL, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Beaufort. Mary G. Lewis, District Judge. (9:17-cv-01335-MGL) Submitted: February 15, 2018 Decided: February 20, 2018 Before WILKINSON, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. William Leon Burnett, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: William Leon Burnett appeals the district court’s order dismissing without prejudice his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint. * The district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2012). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Burnett 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). Burnett has waived appellate review by failing to timely file objections after receiving proper notice. 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. AFFIRMED * Although Burnett’s complaint was dismissed without prejudice, we have jurisdiction over this appeal because the grounds for dismissal indicate that mere amendment could not cure the defects in Burnett’s case. See Goode v. Cent. Va. Legal Aid Soc’y, Inc., 807 F.3d 619, 623 (4th Cir. 2015); Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union 392, 10 F.3d 1064, 1066-67 (4th Cir. 1993). 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.
