Jeffrey Collington v. R. Covington, No. 18-7219 (4th Cir. 2019)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 18-7219 JEFFREY COLLINGTON, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. R. COVINGTON; KATY POOL; JON-DOE YOUNGER; JON-DOE NICHOLSON; JON-DOE WALLACE; JON-DOE HARRIS; JON-DOE OXINDINE; T. DEBERRY, Sgt.; JON-DOE TORREZ; JON-DOE SANDERSON; T. GAULS; JON-DOE SIMMONS; JON-DOE MCKNIGHT; P. CHAVIS, 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-00607-LCB-JEP) Submitted: February 21, 2019 Decided: February 26, 2019 Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and AGEE and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jeffrey Collington, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Jeffrey Collington appeals the district court’s order dismissing 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 granting summary judgment to the Defendants and dismissing the action with prejudice. The magistrate judge advised Collington 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). Collington has waived appellate review by failing to 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.