Case ID: f-appx_380/html/0310-02.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

Joseph WIDEMON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. GUILFORD COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, Over District # 18; Guilford County Office of the Federal Public Defender; Guilford County Sheriffs Department of Detention Bureau, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 10-6180.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: May 20, 2010.
    Decided: May 27, 2010.
    
      Joseph Widemon, Appellant Pro Se.
    Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
   Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Joseph Widemon appeals the district court’s order dismissing without prejudice 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 Widemon’s complaint be dismissed without prejudice and advised Widemon that failure to file objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the recommendation.

The 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 noneomplianee. 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). Wide-mon 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.