Case ID: f-appx_696/html/0115-01.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

Teresa MILLER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. WEST VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, a/k/a WVDOC; Commissioner Jim Rubenstein; Warden Laura Lori Nohe; Warden Thomas; Warden Jeff Stinnett, CCC; Mrs. Smith, CCC; Mrs. Henderson, CCC; CCC; Paul Stump, CED pod unit man; Shelby Searls, A&B Pod unit man; Laura Long, Counselor; Samantha Rollins, Counselor; Jennifer Cauldwell, Counselor; John Judy, Counselor; Ms. Baine; Rebbecca Roush, OA-Mailine; Anthoney King, Shift Com.; Mrs. Edwards, Int. Officer; Dr. Brycon, PSI Med; Ave Roush, PSI Med; Susie Birdsong, Librarian; Roberts; Mrs. Ray; Mrs. M, Si Med, Defendants-Appellees, and Attorney General of West Virginia; Mr. Meed; Mr. Meek; Lakin Correctional Center; Bird Song, Defendants.
    No. 17-6463
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: August 17, 2017
    Decided: August 22, 2017
    Teresa Miller, Appellant Pro Se.
    Before KEENAN, THACKER, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
   Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Teresa Miller seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint. The district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2012). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Miller that failure to file timely objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the 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). Miller has waived appellate review by failing to file timely objections after receiving proper notice. Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in formal pauperis and dismiss the appeal.

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED