# Maradiaga v. Officer Bethea

> Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · January 28, 2010 · 363 F. App'x 987

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/1031362

## Case

- **Full name:** Eric MARADIAGA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Officer E. BETHEA; Major Gore; Warden Stevenson; Dho J.C. Brown; South Carolina Department of Commerce, Defendants-Appellees
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
- **Decided:** January 28, 2010
- **Citations:** 363 F. App'x 987
- **Precedential status:** Unpublished
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Judges:** Niemeyer, King, Davis
- **Cited by:** 2 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/1031362

## Opinion text

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-7858

ERIC MARADIAGA,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

OFFICER E. BETHEA; MAJOR GORE; WARDEN STEVENSON; DHO J.C.
BROWN; SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence. Patrick Michael Duffy, Senior
District Judge. (4:08-cv-00226-PJM)

Submitted: January 19, 2010 Decided: January 28, 2010

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Eric Maradiaga, Appellant Pro Se. William Henry Davidson, II,
Matthew Blaine Rosbrugh, DAVIDSON & LINDEMANN, P.A., Columbia,
South Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

Eric Maradiaga appeals the district court’s order

denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint and

denying his motion for reconsideration. 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 Maradiaga 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, Maradiaga failed to timely 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 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).

Maradiaga waived appellate review by failing to timely file

specific objections after receiving proper notice, and the

district court did not err in denying Maradiaga’s motion for

reconsideration. Accordingly, we affirm the judgments of the

district court.

2
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

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/1031362. Public record. Not legal advice.