Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Sullivan v. Wells, 4th Cir. (2005)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    1 views2 pages
    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit regarding a case brought by David Farrell Sullivan under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The district court had referred the case to a magistrate judge, who recommended that relief be denied. Sullivan failed to file timely objections to the magistrate's recommendation, so the appeals court affirmed the district court's dismissal without prejudice. The appeals court also affirmed the denial of Sullivan's post-judgment relief motions and denied his motion for appointment of counsel.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2005-02-09 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 04-6693

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit regarding a case brought by David Farrell Sullivan under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The district court had referred the case to a magistrate judge, who recommended that relief be denied. Sullivan failed to file timely objections to the magistrate's recommendation, so the appeals court affirmed the district court's dismissal without prejudice. The appeals court also affirmed the denial of Sullivan's post-judgment relief motions and denied his motion for appointment of counsel.

    Copyright:

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

    Sullivan v. Wells, 4th Cir. (2005)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit regarding a case brought by David Farrell Sullivan under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The district court had referred the case to a magistrate judge, who recommended that relief be denied. Sullivan failed to file timely objections to the magistrate's recommendation, so the appeals court affirmed the district court's dismissal without prejudice. The appeals court also affirmed the denial of Sullivan's post-judgment relief motions and denied his motion for appointment of counsel.

    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. 04-6693

    DAVID FARRELL SULLIVAN,


    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    versus
    JENNIFER
    DIEDMON;
    AGENTS,

    W. WELLS; LORETTA RHORER; SHANE


    LARRY POWERS, Director; UNKNOWN
    Defendants - Appellees.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    South Carolina, at Spartanburg. Henry F. Floyd, District Judge.
    (CA-02-3879-7-26)

    Submitted:

    December 13, 2004

    Decided:

    February 9, 2005

    Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    David Farrell Sullivan, Appellant Pro Se.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    David Farrell Sullivan appeals the district courts order
    dismissing without prejudice his 42 U.S.C. 1983 (2000) complaint.
    The

    district

    court

    referred

    this

    case

    to

    pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(B) (2000).

    magistrate

    judge

    The magistrate judge

    recommended that relief be denied and advised Sullivan that failure


    to file timely and specific objections to this recommendation could
    waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the
    recommendation.

    Despite this warning, Sullivan failed to timely

    and specifically 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).
    review

    by

    failing

    to

    receiving proper notice.


    the district court.

    timely

    Sullivan has waived appellate

    file

    specific

    objections

    after

    Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of

    We further affirm the district courts orders

    denying Sullivans motions for post-judgment relief, and deny


    Sullivans motion for appointment of counsel.
    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