Case ID: f-appx_123/html/0106-01.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

Thomas Earl GREENE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. GREENVILLE COUNTY DETENTION CENTER MEDICAL DEPARTMENT, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 04-7898.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: Feb. 24, 2005.
    Decided: March 9, 2005.
    Thomas Earl Greene, Appellant pro se.
    Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).
   PER CURIAM:

Thomas Earl Greene appeals the district court’s order accepting and adopting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing without prejudice his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint for failure to state a claim and failure to exhaust administrative remedies. 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 Greene that failure to timely file specific, written objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the recommendation. Despite this warning, Greene failed to file specific objections to the magistrate judge’s recommendation. Greene’s filed objections were entirely general and conelusory.

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 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. Am, 474 U.S. 140, 106 S.Ct. 466, 88 L.Ed.2d 435 (1985). Greene has waived appellate review by failing to file objections with any specificity 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