Case ID: f-appx_283/html/0117-01.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

Alexander BELL, a/k/a Sulyaman Al wa Salaam, a/k/a Sulyaman Alislam Wa Salaam, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Officer TAYLOR; Officer FNU Lapett; Officer Stalling; Officer FNU Callahand; Officer FNU Poor; Officer Hudson; Officer FNU Grey; Major FNU Myers; Officer Dash, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 08-6579.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: June 26, 2008.
    Decided: July 3, 2008.
    Alexander Bell, Appellant Pro Se. William Henry Davidson, II, Daniel C. Plyler, Davidson, Morrison & Lindemann, PA, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.
    Before KING and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior Circuit Judge.
    Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
   PER CURIAM:

Alexander Bell seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on 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 Bell 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, Bell failed to 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 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). Bell has waived appellate review by failing to timely file specific objections after receiving proper notice. Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss the appeal.

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.

DISMISSED.