UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-6812

JAMES A. BUTLER,

Plaintiff – Appellant,

v.

JOHN DOES; JANE DOES, and all AW’s; UNITED STATES OF 

AMERICA,

Defendants – Appellees,

and

MOUBARAK, Clinical Director; S. DEWALT, Warden; NURSE 

WILLIAMS; ELAYAN, Health Service Administrator; BLOCKER, 

MD; SERRANO, Clinical director sued in their individual and 

official capacity,

Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Beaufort. J. Michelle Childs, District 

Judge. (9:08-cv-02760-JMC)

Submitted: November 8, 2011 Decided: December 6, 2011

Before NIEMEYER, DAVIS, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed as modified by unpublished per curiam opinion.
2

James A. Butler, Appellant Pro Se. Barbara Murcier Bowens, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
3

PER CURIAM: 

James A. Butler appeals the district court’s order 

adopting the report and recommendation of the magistrate judge 

and denying relief on Butler’s complaint which raised claims 

under the Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”), finding that Butler 

failed to object to the magistrate judge’s report. Butler also 

appeals from the denial of his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion for 

reconsideration, which asserted that he had timely filed 

objections to the magistrate judge’s report. In that order, the 

court found that, although Butler timely filed objections, they 

were not specific enough to warrant further review. 

Initially, the district court referred this case to a 

magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 636(b)(1)(B) (West 

2006 & Supp. 2011). The magistrate judge recommended that 

relief be denied on Butler’s FTCA claims1

 1 The district court had earlier dismissed Butler’s 

Bivens v. Six Unknown Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 

U.S. 388 (1971), claims for failure to exhaust, and Butler does 

not challenge this dismissal on appeal.

and advised Butler that 

failure to file timely objections to this recommendation, which 

specifically identified the portions of the Report and 

Recommendation to which objections were made, could waive 

appellate review of a district court order based upon the 

recommendation. 
4

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 (1985). We 

find that Butler has waived appellate review by failing to file 

specific objections after receiving proper notice.2 Accordingly, 

we modify the denial of Rule 59 relief to show that the motion 

is denied because Butler failed to file timely objections, and 

we affirm the district court’s orders as modified. 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 AS MODIFIED

 2 Although the district court and the parties concluded on 

reconsideration that Butler had filed timely objections, they 

were mistaken. The document considered as “objections” was 

instead an opposition to summary judgment, signed and served 

prior to the issuance of the magistrate judge’s report.