Case Name: William T. COLEMAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. YORK COUNTY 16 CIRCUIT JUDICIAL COURT; Judge John C. Hayes, III, Judge Code 2049, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-01-16
Citations: 550 F. App'x 167
Docket Number: No. 13-7283
Parties: William T. COLEMAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. YORK COUNTY 16 CIRCUIT JUDICIAL COURT; Judge John C. Hayes, III, Judge Code 2049, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 550
Pages: 167–168

Head Matter:
William T. COLEMAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. YORK COUNTY 16 CIRCUIT JUDICIAL COURT; Judge John C. Hayes, III, Judge Code 2049, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 13-7283.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Dec. 27, 2013.
Decided: Jan. 16, 2014.
William T. Coleman, Appellant Pro Se.
Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
William T. Coleman appeals the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint. The district court referred this case to a magis trate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2012). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Coleman that failure to file timely objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the 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). Coleman has waived appellate review as to his claim against the York County court by failing to file specific objections after receiving proper notice. We conclude, however, that Coleman's objections adequately preserved his claim against Judge Hayes, but that the claim fails because the judge is immune from suit. See Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 356-57, 98 S.Ct. 1099, 55 L.Ed.2d 331 (1978).
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 this Court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED.