Jacob Baker v. Registration

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-1121
JACOB BAKER,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
REGISTRATION AND ELECTION OFFICE; SHERIFF STEVE LOFTIS;
FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION; BARACK OBAMA, Democratic Party;
JOE BIDEN; OPRAH WINFREY; MARK STANFORD; PRINCE CHARLES,
London the British; FRANCE THE COUNTRY; SADDIE HUSSAN; MITT
ROMNEY, Republican Party; GARY JOHNSON, Libertarian Party;
VIRGIL GOODE, Constitution Party; JILL STEIN, Green Party;
MICHAEL A. BAKER; GREENVILLE POLICE DEPARTMENT; GEORGE W.
BUSH,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Greenville. Timothy M. Cain, District Judge.
(6:12-cv-03221-TMC)
Submitted: March 28, 2013 Decided: April 2, 2013
Before NIEMEYER, KING, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jacob Baker, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Jacob Baker appeals the district court’s order
accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and
dismissing without prejudice his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006)
complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (2006). The district
court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28
U.S.C.A. § 636(b)(1)(B) (West 2006 & Supp. 2012). The
magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised
Baker that failure to file timely and specific 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). Baker
has waived appellate review by failing to file specific
objections after receiving proper notice.
We deny Baker’s motion for default judgment. We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials

-- 2 of 3 --

3
before this court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
AFFIRMED

-- 3 of 3 --