Case ID: f-appx_120/html/0502-01.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

David Farrell SULLIVAN, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Jennifer W. WELLS; Loretta Rhorer; Shane Diedmon; Larry Powers, Director; Unknown Agents, Defendants—Appellees.
    No. 04-6693.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted Dec. 13, 2004.
    Decided Feb. 9, 2005.
    David Farrell Sullivan, Appellant pro se.
    Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).
   PER CURIAM.

David Farrell Sullivan appeals the district court’s order dismissing without prejudice his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) 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 Sullivan that failure to file timely and specific objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the recommendation. Despite this warning, Sullivan failed to timely and specifically 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 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). Sullivan 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 further affirm the district court’s orders denying Sullivan’s motions for post-judgment relief, and deny Sullivan’s motion for appointment of counsel.

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