LAWRENCE CORNELIUS PAULIN, JR., a/k/a Lawrence C Paulin v. RAY NASH, Sheriff

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-6473
LAWRENCE CORNELIUS PAULIN, JR., a/k/a Lawrence C Paulin,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
RAY NASH, Sheriff,
Defendant – Appellee.
No. 09-6474
LAWRENCE CORNELIUS PAULIN, JR.,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
FRANKLIN SMITH, former Chief Jailer,
Defendant – Appellee.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the District
of South Carolina, at Greenville. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., Senior
District Judge. (6:07-cv-03753-GRA; 6:08-cv-00067-GRA)
Submitted: July 23, 2009 Decided: July 29, 2009
Before WILKINSON and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.

-- 1 of 4 --

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Lawrence Cornelius Paulin, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. William J.
Thrower, STUCKEY LAW OFFICES, PA, Charleston, South Carolina;
for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

-- 2 of 4 --

PER CURIAM:
In these consolidated appeals, Lawrence Cornelius
Paulin, Jr., appeals the district court’s orders dismissing his
42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) actions. The district court referred
the cases to a magistrate judge, pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1)(B) (2006). The magistrate judge recommended
granting Defendants’ summary judgment motions in the respective
actions, and advised Paulin that failure to file timely and
specific objections to the recommendations could waive appellate
review of a district court order based upon the recommendations.
Despite this warning, and despite receiving extensions of time
to file his objections, Paulin failed to file objections to the
magistrate judge’s recommendations.
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, 845-47
(4th Cir. 1985); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 147-48
(1985). Paulin has waived appellate review by failing to file
objections after receiving proper notice. Accordingly, we
affirm the district court’s orders. Paulin v. Nash, No.
6:07-cv-03753-GRA (D.S.C. Feb. 17, 2009); Paulin v. Smith, No.
6:08-cv-00067-GRA (D.S.C. Feb. 18, 2009). We dispense with oral
3

-- 3 of 4 --

4
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

-- 4 of 4 --