UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

STANLEY LORENZO WILLIAMS,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

ROBERT CANADAY, Sheriff; M. G.

MORRIS, Judge of Probate; MARK

No. 99-7563

TARLTON, Judicial Official; A.

REDMON, Judicial Official; R. T.

HARRINGTON, Police Officer; PAMELA

WALKER, Deputy Clerk,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham.

Frank W. Bullock, Jr., District Judge.

(CA-99-605-1)

Submitted: March 10, 2000

Decided: March 30, 2000

Before WILKINS, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Stanley Lorenzo Williams, Appellant Pro Se.

_________________________________________________________________
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Stanley Lorenzo Williams appeals the district court's order dismissing his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 1999) complaint. Williams' 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 Williams that failure to file objections to the

report and recommendation within ten days could waive appellate

review of a district court order based upon the recommendation. The

district court found Williams failed to timely object to the magistrate

judge's report and recommendation, adopted the report and recommendation, and dismissed Williams' § 1983 action. Williams timely

appealed, alleging he did in fact file timely objections to the magistrate judge's report and recommendation.

We conclude from the record that Williams is correct. Williams

filed objections to the magistrate judge's report and recommendation

on August 1, 1999,* within ten days of the magistrate judge's July 23

report. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(a). Though that document was "stricken"

without prejudice for lack of a certificate of service, Williams filed

such a certificate before the court's August 30, 1999 deadline to do

so.

The district court's error, however, does not entitle Williams to

relief. We have reviewed the record, the magistrate judge's report and

recommendation, and Williams' objections and conclude that the

magistrate judge's report and recommendation correctly addressed

_________________________________________________________________

*Under Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 276 (1988), an inmate's pleadings are considered filed on the day they are given to prison officials for

mailing. Even if Williams' objections are considered filed August 5,

1999, the day they were received by the district court, they are timely

under Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(a).

 2
Williams' claims. Accordingly, we affirm the district court's order

dismissing Williams' § 1983 complaint on the reasoning of the magistrate judge, which the district court adopted. 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

 3