Gantt v. Prison Health Sys., 73 F.3d 357 (4th Cir. 1996). · Go Syfert
Search
Gantt v. Prison Health Sys., 73 F.3d 357 (4th Cir. 1996). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
45 citation events (9 in the last 25 years) across 6 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Tucker v. U.S. Bank Trust, National Alliance (vawd, 2025-07-11)
Treatment trajectory · 1995 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1995 2010 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 3 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Tucker v. U.S. Bank Trust, National Alliance
W.D. Va. · 2025 · confidence medium
See also Andes, 788 F.2d at 1037 (“It upsets notions of fundamental fairness for a court, in response to a party’s request for dismissal without prejudice, to grant the request by dismissing with prejudice, while failing to give the moving party notice of its inclination to impose this extreme remedy. [A] plaintiff deserve[s] such notice and an opportunity to proceed with the litigation of this case.”); Jones v. Hill, 73 F.3d 357, 357 (4th Cir. 1995) (unpublished) (per curiam) (“‘[T]he plaintiff is entitled to notice of the district court’s intention to dismiss with prejudice so th…
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Gray v. La Salle Bank, N.A.
Cal. Ct. App. · 2023 · signal: see also · confidence low
(Manning v. South Carolina Dep’t. of Highway & Public Transp. (4th Cir. 1990) 914 F.2d 44 , 47, fn. 5; see also Gabhart v. Craven Regional Medical Ctr. (4th Cir. 1995) 73 F.3d 357 (Gabhart) [applying North Carolina two-dismissal statute].) Rule 41(b) concerns involuntary dismissals and reads: “If the plaintiff fails to prosecute or to comply with these rules or a court order, a defendant may move to dismiss the action or any claim against it.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Gray v. La Salle Bank
Cal. Ct. App. · 2023 · signal: see also · confidence low
(Manning v. South Carolina Dep’t. of Highway & Public Transp. (4th Cir. 1990) 914 F.2d 44 , 47, fn. 5; see also Gabhart v. Craven Regional Medical Ctr. (4th Cir. 1995) 73 F.3d 357 (Gabhart) [applying North Carolina two-dismissal statute].) Rule 41(b) concerns involuntary dismissals and reads: “If the plaintiff fails to prosecute or to comply with these rules or a court order, a defendant may move to dismiss the action or any claim against it.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
George W. Gantt
v.
Prison Health Systems John Doe--1, P.A. John Doe--2, P.A. Anderson, P.A. Rieley, M.T. Supervisor W. Meadows, Director Allied Health, Incorporated Mundy, Medical Director Moss, Employee of the United States Parole Commission, P.A. Wilson, P.A. Anderson, P.A. E. Robinson, Medical Technician Supervisor Tanya Nichols Robbins, Medical Technician
95-7237.
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.
Jan 4, 1996.
73 F.3d 357
Published

73 F.3d 357
NOTICE: Fourth Circuit Local Rule 36(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.

George W. GANTT, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
PRISON HEALTH SYSTEMS; John Doe--1, P.A.; John Doe--2,
P.A.; Anderson, P.A.; Rieley, M.T. Supervisor; W.
Meadows, Director; Allied Health, Incorporated; Mundy,
Medical Director; Moss, Employee of the United States
Parole Commission, P.A.; Wilson, P.A.; Anderson, P.A.; E.
Robinson, Medical Technician Supervisor; Tanya Nichols;
Robbins, Medical Technician, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 95-7237.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Nov. 28, 1995.
Decided Jan. 4, 1996.

George W. Gantt, Appellant Pro Se.

Joseph Barry Chazen, Steven R. Smith, MEYERS, BILLINGSLEY, SHIPLEY, RODBELL & ROSENBAUM, Riverdale, Maryland; Daniel Karp, ALLEN, JOHNSON, ALEXANDER & KARP, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.

Before MURNAGHAN, WILKINS, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

PER CURIAM:

1

Appellant appeals from the district court's orders dismissing his 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 (1988) complaint and denying his motion filed under Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b). Appellant's case was referred to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 636(b)(1)(B) (1988). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Appellant 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, Appellant failed to object to the magistrate judge's recommendation.

2

The timely filing of 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. Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir.1985). See generally Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Appellant has waived appellate review by failing to file objections after receiving proper notice. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. Further, because we find no abuse of discretion in the district court's denial of Appellant's Rule 60(b) motion, we affirm. Gantt v. Prison Health Systems, No. CA-93-828-PJM (D. Md. July 14, 1995; July 28, 1995).

3

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