Case ID: f-appx_81/html/0801-02.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

William N. ODOM, Jr., Plaintiff—Appellant, v. John E. POTTER, in his capacity as Postmaster General, Defendant—Appellee.
    No. 03-1945.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted Nov. 19, 2003.
    Decided Dec. 3, 2003.
    William N. Odom, Jr., Appellant pro se. Christopher John Burton, United States Postal Service, Washington, D.C., for Appellee.
    Before WILKINSON and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
    
      Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).
   PER CURIAM.

William N. Odom, Jr., appeals the district court’s order dismissing his employment discrimination 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 Odom that failure to file timely objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the recommendation. Despite this warning and an extension of time in which to file, Odom failed to 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. Arn. 474 U.S. 140, 106 S.Ct. 466, 88 L.Ed.2d 435 (1985). Odom 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