Case ID: f-appx_475/html/0914-02.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

James A. WILLIAMS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Michael STUDIVENT, Official Capacity; Deborah Lankford, Individual and Official Capacity; Samuel Lankford, Individual and Official Capacity; Lankford Protective Services, Official Capacity; Tommy Stevens, Individual and Official Capacity, Defendants—Appellees.
    No. 12-1755.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: Aug. 13, 2012.
    Decided: Aug. 17, 2012.
    James A. Williams, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Studivent, Bee and Jay Motors, Greensboro, North Carolina; Sarah Helen Roane, Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, PC, Greensboro, North Carolina; William L. Hill, James Demarest Secor, III, Frazier Hill & Fury, RLLP, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellees.
    Before GREGORY, DUNCAN, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
   Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

James A. Williams appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint. The district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 636(b)(1)(B) (West 2006 & Supp.2012). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Williams 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). Williams 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.