Davis v. Wilkinson

Fourth Circuit

Davis v. Wilkinson

443 F. App'x 812

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedAugust 22, 2011

DocketNos. 11-1386, 11-1389, 11-1406, 11-1407, 11-1409, 11-1411, 11-1416, 11-1418, 11-1419, 11-1420, 11-1422, 11-1435, 11-1463, 11-1559, 11-1560, 11-1566

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 443 F. App'x 812 (Davis v. Wilkinson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Davis v. Wilkinson, 443 F. App'x 812 (4th Cir. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

William Scott Davis, Jr., appeals the district courts’ orders denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaints. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district courts. Davis v. Durham, No. 5:11-cv-0036-H (E.D.N.C. Mar. 11, 2011); Davis v. Pembroke, No. 4:11-cv-00016-RBS-DEM (E.D. Va. filed E.D. Va. Jan. 26, 2011 & entered Jan. 27, 2011); Davis v. Doyle, No. 4:11-cv-00018-RBS-DEM (E.D. Va. filed Jan. 26, 2011 & entered Jan. 27, 2011); Davis v. North Carolina, No. 4:11-cv-00015-cv-RBS-DEM (E.D. Va. filed Jan. 26, 2011 & entered Jan. 27, 2011); Davis v. Jaworski, No. 4:11-cv-00019-RBS-DEM (E.D. Va. filed Jan. 26, 2011 & entered Jan. 27, 2011); Davis v. Doyle, No. 4:11-cv-00013-RBS-DEM (E.D. Va. filed Jan. 26, 2011); Davis v. Doyle, No. 4:11-cv-00014-RBS-DEM (E.D.Va. Jan. 26, 2011); Davis v. Crouthermel, No. 4:11-cv-00017-RBS-DEM (E.D.Va. Jan. 26, 2011); Davis v. North Carolina, No. 4:11-cv-00011-RBS-[817]*817DEM (E.D. Va. filed Jan. 26, 2011 & entered Jan. 27, 2011); Davis v. Singer, No. 4:11-cv-00012-RBS-DEM (E.D. Va. filed Jan. 26, 2011 & entered Jan. 27, 2011); Davis v. Chasse, No. 4:11-cv-0020-RBS-DEM (E.D. Va. filed Jan. 26, 2011 & entered Jan. 27, 2011); Davis v. Town of Cary North Carolina, No. 4:11-cv-00006-RBS-DEM (E.D.Va. Jan. 24, 2011); Davis v. Wake Cnty. Dep’t of Human Servs., No. 4:11-cv-00008-RBS-DEM (E.D.Va. Jan. 24, 2011); Davis v. Vick, No. 4:11-cv-00009-RBS-DEM (E.D.Va. Jan. 26, 2011).

In appeals 11-1386 and 11-1463, the district court referred the case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 636(b)(1)(B) (West 2006 & Supp.2011). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Davis 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. Am, 474 U.S. 140, 106 S.Ct. 466, 88 L.Ed.2d 435 (1985). Davis has waived appellate review by failing to timely file objections after receiving proper notice.

Based on the foregoing, we affirm the judgment of the district courts in these appeals. 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.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

William Scott Davis, Jr., appeals the district courts’ orders denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaints. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district courts. Davis v. Durham, No. 5:11-cv-0036-H (E.D.N.C. Mar. 11, 2011); Davis v. Pembroke, No. 4:11-cv-00016-RBS-DEM (E.D. Va. filed E.D. Va. Jan. 26, 2011 & entered Jan. 27, 2011); Davis v. Doyle, No. 4:11-cv-00018-RBS-DEM (E.D. Va. filed Jan. 26, 2011 & entered Jan. 27, 2011); Davis v. North Carolina, No. 4:11-cv-00015-cv-RBS-DEM (E.D. Va. filed Jan. 26, 2011 & entered Jan. 27, 2011); Davis v. Jaworski, No. 4:11-cv-00019-RBS-DEM (E.D. Va. filed Jan. 26, 2011 & entered Jan. 27, 2011); Davis v. Doyle, No. 4:11-cv-00013-RBS-DEM (E.D. Va. filed Jan. 26, 2011); Davis v. Doyle, No. 4:11-cv-00014-RBS-DEM (E.D.Va. Jan. 26, 2011); Davis v. Crouthermel, No. 4:11-cv-00017-RBS-DEM (E.D.Va. Jan. 26, 2011); Davis v. North Carolina, No. 4:11-cv-00011-RBS-[817]*817DEM (E.D. Va. filed Jan. 26, 2011 & entered Jan. 27, 2011); Davis v. Singer, No. 4:11-cv-00012-RBS-DEM (E.D. Va. filed Jan. 26, 2011 & entered Jan. 27, 2011); Davis v. Chasse, No. 4:11-cv-0020-RBS-DEM (E.D. Va. filed Jan. 26, 2011 & entered Jan. 27, 2011); Davis v. Town of Cary North Carolina, No. 4:11-cv-00006-RBS-DEM (E.D.Va. Jan. 24, 2011); Davis v. Wake Cnty. Dep’t of Human Servs., No. 4:11-cv-00008-RBS-DEM (E.D.Va. Jan. 24, 2011); Davis v. Vick, No. 4:11-cv-00009-RBS-DEM (E.D.Va. Jan. 26, 2011).

In appeals 11-1386 and 11-1463, the district court referred the case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 636(b)(1)(B) (West 2006 & Supp.2011). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Davis 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. Am, 474 U.S. 140, 106 S.Ct. 466, 88 L.Ed.2d 435 (1985). Davis has waived appellate review by failing to timely file objections after receiving proper notice.

Based on the foregoing, we affirm the judgment of the district courts in these appeals. 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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

443 F. App'x 812, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/davis-v-wilkinson-ca4-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack