Case ID: f-appx_164/html/0424-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Robert Earl VANCE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Jurell BYRD, Jail Administrator; Patsie Johnson, Jail Official; Kathy Franklin, Defendants—Appellees.
    No. 05-7342.
    United States Court of Appeals, • Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: Jan. 26, 2006.
    Decided: Feb. 2, 2006.
    Robert Earl Vance, Appellant Pro Se. Russell W. Harter, Jr., Chapman, Harter & Groves, P.A., Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellees.
    Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Robert Earl Vance appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment to Defendants in Vance’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) suit. The district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2000). The magistrate judge issued a report and recommendation in which he recommended granting summary judgment to Defendants. The district court adopted the report and recommendation, finding that Vance failed to file specific objections.

The timely filing of specific objections to a magistrate judge’s report and 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, 106 S.Ct. 466, 88 L.Ed.2d 435 (1985). On appeal, Vance does not challenge the district court’s conclusion that his objections were merely general. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b) (failure to raise claim in informal brief waives consideration of that claim). Accordingly, we conclude that Vance has waived appellate review of both the substance of the magistrate judge’s report and the district court’s construction of his objections.

Thus, we affirm the order 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