# Wentzky v. Brown & Co. Securities Corp.

> Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · February 12, 2003 · 55 F. App'x 680

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/1009762

## Case

- **Full name:** John D. WENTZKY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BROWN & COMPANY SECURITIES CORPORATION; The Nasdaq Stock Market, Incorporated, Defendants-Appellees
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
- **Decided:** February 12, 2003
- **Citations:** 55 F. App'x 680
- **Precedential status:** Unpublished
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Judges:** Michael, Per Curiam, Shedd, Wilkins
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/1009762

## Opinion text

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-2299

JOHN D. WENTZKY,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

BROWN & COMPANY SECURITIES CORPORATION; THE
NASDAQ STOCK MARKET, INCORPORATED,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Anderson. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District Judge.
(CA-02-1858-20AK)

Submitted: February 6, 2003 Decided: February 12, 2003

Before WILKINS, MICHAEL, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

John D. Wentzky, Appellant Pro Se. Frank S. Holleman, III, Troy
Alan Tessier, WYCHE, BURGESS, FREEMAN & PARHAM, P.A., Greenville,
South Carolina; William Alexander Coates, ROE, CASSIDY, COATES &
PRICE, P.A., Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:

John D. Wentzky appeals the district court’s order dismissing

his complaint against Brown & Co. Securities Corp. and the Nasdaq

Stock Market, Inc. The district court referred this case to a

magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2000). The

magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised

Wentzky that failure to file timely objections to this

recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court

order based upon the recommendation. Despite this warning, Wentzky

failed to object to the magistrate judge’s 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 that failure to object will waive appellate review. See

Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985); see also

Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Wentzky has waived appellate

review by failing to file objections after receiving proper notice.

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.

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

2

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/1009762. Public record. Not legal advice.