Kim Tyrone Jessup v. THEODORE DAVID HILL, Detective

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-6348
KIM TYRONE JESSUP,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
THEODORE DAVID HILL, Detective; JOHN PAUL TIMBERLAKE,
Detective; STEVEN WAYNE TOLLIE, Corporal; CITY OF WINSTON-
SALEM, NORTH CAROLINA, Forsyth County; RENEE SUZANNE MELLY,
Detective; TIMOTHY VAUGHN SOUTHERN, Sergeant; JAMES THOMAS
MCKNIGHT, Deputy; JAMIE DENTON, Deputy; DANNY CARTER,
Deputy; WINSTON-SALEM POLICE DEPARTMENT; FORSYTH COUNTY,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. William L.
Osteen, Jr., District Judge. (1:06-cv-01114-WO-WWD)
Submitted: July 10, 2009 Decided: August 14, 2009
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Kim Tyrone Jessup, Appellant Pro Se. James R. Morgan, Jr.,
Robert T. Numbers, II, WOMBLE, CARLYLE, SANDRIDGE & RICE, PLLC,
Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

PER CURIAM:
Kim Tyrone Jessup appeals the district court’s order
denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint. The
district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2006). The magistrate judge
recommended that relief be denied and advised Jessup that
failure to file timely and specific objections to this
recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court
order based upon the recommendation. Although Jessup filed
timely objections, he failed to object to the magistrate judge’s
recommendation that his claim was barred by collateral estoppel.
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). Jessup
has waived appellate review by failing to timely file specific
objections to a dispositive basis for the ruling after receiving
proper notice.* Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the
district court.
* In any event, we have reviewed the record and agree that
Jessup’s § 1983 complaint is barred by the doctrine of
collateral estoppel.
2

-- 2 of 3 --

3
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

-- 3 of 3 --