Case ID: f-appx_223/html/0202-01.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

Jhishayon XCELL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. AID UPSTATE, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 06-1872.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: March 29, 2007.
    Decided: April 2, 2007.
    Jhishayon Xeell, Appellant Pro Se. Matthew Kinard Johnson, Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C., Green-ville, South Carolina, for Appellee.
    Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
   PER CURIAM:

Jhishayon Xeell appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 complaint. The district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2000). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Xeell 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, Xeell 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 noncompliance. 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). Xeell has waived appellate review by failing to timely file specific 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.