Case ID: f-appx_22/html/0259-01.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

Kaizel MOSLEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. G. MCLEOD; M. Coleman; R. Cassidy, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 01-7450.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted Nov. 29, 2001.
    Decided Dec. 10, 2001.
    Kaizel Mosley, pro se. Andrew Foster McLeod, Harris & McLeod, Cheraw, SC, for appellees.
    Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM.

Kaizel Mosley appeals the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 2001) complaint. Mosley’s case was referred to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (1994). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Mosley 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, Mosley failed to object to the magistrate judge’s recommendation.

The timely filing of 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). Mosley has waived appellate review by failing to file timely 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.