Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Hudson v. Dillard, 4th Cir. (2005)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    4 views2 pages
    1) Ervin Hudson appealed a district court order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against his public defender, Keisha Dillard. 2) The district court had referred the case to a magistrate judge, who recommended denying relief and warned Hudson that failing to object could waive his right to appeal. 3) Hudson failed to object to the magistrate's recommendation, so the appeals court affirmed the district court's judgment, finding he had waived his right to appellate review.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2005-07-22 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 05-6324

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    1) Ervin Hudson appealed a district court order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against his public defender, Keisha Dillard. 2) The district court had referred the case to a magistrate judge, who recommended denying relief and warned Hudson that failing to object could waive his right to appeal. 3) Hudson failed to object to the magistrate's recommendation, so the appeals court affirmed the district court's judgment, finding he had waived his right to appellate review.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    4 views2 pages

    Hudson v. Dillard, 4th Cir. (2005)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    1) Ervin Hudson appealed a district court order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against his public defender, Keisha Dillard. 2) The district court had referred the case to a magistrate judge, who recommended denying relief and warned Hudson that failing to object could waive his right to appeal. 3) Hudson failed to object to the magistrate's recommendation, so the appeals court affirmed the district court's judgment, finding he had waived his right to appellate review.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    of 2

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 05-6324

    ERVIN L. HUDSON,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    versus
    KEISHA M. DILLARD, Assistant Public Defender,
    Defendant -

    Appellee.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Richmond.
    James R. Spencer, Chief
    District Judge. (CA-04-520-3)

    Submitted:

    July 14, 2005

    Decided:

    July 22, 2005

    Before WILKINSON, LUTTIG, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Ervin L. Hudson, Appellant Pro Se.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Ervin

    L.

    Hudson

    appeals

    the

    district

    dismissing his 42 U.S.C. 1983 (2000) complaint.

    courts

    order

    The district

    court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28


    U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(B) (2000).

    The magistrate judge recommended

    that relief be denied and advised Hudson that failure to file


    timely objections to this recommendation could waive appellate
    review of a district court order based upon the recommendation.
    Despite this warning, Hudson failed to object to the magistrate
    judges recommendation.
    The timely filing of specific objections to a magistrate
    judges recommendation is necessary to preserve appellate review of
    the substance of that recommendation when the parties have been
    warned that failure to object will waive appellate review.

    See

    Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985); see also
    Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985).

    Hudson 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
    the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

    AFFIRMED

    - 2 -

    You might also like