Case ID: f-appx_363/html/0987-01.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

Eric MARADIAGA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Officer E. BETHEA; Major Gore; Warden Stevenson; Dho J.C. Brown; South Carolina Department of Commerce, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 09-7858.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: Jan. 19, 2010.
    Decided: Jan. 28, 2010.
    Eric Maradiaga, Appellant Pro Se. William Henry Davidson, II, Matthew Blaine Rosbrugh, Davidson & Lindemann, P.A., Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.
    Before NIEMEYER, KING, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
   Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Eric Maradiaga appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint and denying his motion for reconsideration. The district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2006). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Maradiaga 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, Maradiaga failed to timely 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). Maradiaga waived appellate review by failing to timely file specific objections after receiving proper notice, and the district court did not err in denying Maradiaga’s motion for reconsideration. Accordingly, we affirm the judgments 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.