James Barnett, Jr. v. Samuel Page, No. 18-6566 (4th Cir. 2018)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 18-6566 JAMES ANTHONY BARNETT, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, v. SHERIFF SAMUEL W. PAGE; NURSE JENNY THOMAS, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Loretta C. Biggs, District Judge. (1:15-cv-01064-LCB-JLW) Submitted: August 16, 2018 Decided: August 21, 2018 Before WYNN and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James Anthony Barnett, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Torin L. Fury, William L. Hill, FRAZIER HILL & FURY, RLLP, Greensboro, North Carolina; Jay C. Salsman, HARRIS, CREECH, WARD & BLACKERBY, New Bern, North Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: James Anthony Barnett, Jr., appeals the district court’s order and judgment dismissing his civil rights 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 Barnett 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). Barnett 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 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.