John Alan Miller v. Rock Hill City Police Department, c-o Rock Hill Law Enforcement Center

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-6863
JOHN ALAN MILLER,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
ROCK HILL CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT, c-o Rock Hill Law
Enforcement Center,
Defendant – Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., Chief
District Judge. (2:09-cv-00737-JFA)
Submitted: September 29, 2009 Decided: October 7, 2009
Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
John Alan Miller, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

PER CURIAM:
John Alan Miller appeals the district court’s order
denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) civil rights
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 Miller that failure to file specific objections to this
recommendation would waive appellate review of a district court
order based upon the recommendation. Although Miller filed a
response to the magistrate judge’s recommendation, he did not
specifically object to the dispositive portions of 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. United States v. Midgette, 478 F.3d 616, 621-22
(4th Cir. 2007); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985).
Miller has waived appellate review by failing to file specific
objections after receiving proper notice. Accordingly, we
affirm the judgment of the district court. We deny all pending
motions, including Miller’s motions for damages, to impose
sanctions, to compel the release of evidence and documents, for
2

-- 2 of 3 --

3
the appointment of counsel, for transcripts at Government
expense, and for default judgment.
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 --