Tisdale v. South Carolina Highway Patrol
Cases that cite this one
54 later published cases cite this decision. The 14 that cite it most often are listed here.
- Singletary v. Aiken County Code Enforcement Division (District Court, D. South Carolina 2025)
- McCoy v. Stephen (District Court, D. South Carolina 2025)
- McCoy v. Marto (District Court, D. South Carolina 2025)
- Fletcher v. Facebook, Inc. (District Court, D. South Carolina 2025)
- Fletcher v. Facebook, Inc. (United States District Court for the Northern District of California 2025)
- Williams v. Evans (The State) (District Court, D. South Carolina 2025)
- Spann v. Vanderbilt Mortgage and Finance, Inc. (District Court, D. South Carolina 2025)
- Huertas v. Warden Rhodes (District Court, D. South Carolina 2025)
- Brown v. Deaton (District Court, D. South Carolina 2025)
- Jamel Brown v. Peter McCoy Jr. (District Court, D. South Carolina 2025)
- Smalls v. Wolf (District Court, D. South Carolina 2025)
- Scofield v. State of South Carolina (District Court, D. South Carolina 2025)
- Hardaway v. Wilson (District Court, D. South Carolina 2025)
- Green v. Ritchee (District Court, D. South Carolina 2025)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Clayton Howard Tisdale appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) 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 Tisdale that failure to file timely and specific objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the recommendation. Despite this warning, Tisdale 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 of the consequences of noncomplianee. Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 106 S.Ct. 466, 88 L.Ed.2d 435 (1985). Tisdale 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.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.