Larry Tyler v. Captain Coe, No. 16-6807 (4th Cir. 2016)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-6807 LARRY JAMES TYLER, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. CAPTAIN COE; WAYNE BYRD; DIANN WILKS, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Beaufort. Mary G. Lewis, District Judge. (9:16-cv-00122-MGL) Submitted: November 22, 2016 Before DIAZ and Circuit Judge. THACKER, Circuit Decided: Judges, November 28, 2016 and DAVIS, Senior Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Larry James Tyler, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Larry James Tyler appeals the district court’s dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint. order The district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2012). The magistrate judge recommended that Tyler’s action be dismissed because he failed to comply with the court’s February 24, 2016, order instructing him that he had 21 days to fill out certain forms and provide information to the court needed to proceed with his action. judge’s order advised Tyler that failure The magistrate to file timely objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order based upon 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. Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Tyler has waived appellate review by failing to file objections after receiving proper notice. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. We dispense deny with Tyler’s motion oral argument for appointment because 2 the of counsel facts and and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 3

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.