Case Name: David Lee DINKINS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SUMTER COUNTY, c/o William Noonan; Lee County, c/o Jimmy Mcoste; Simon Major, Jr., Director; Dr. Bush; Southern Health Partners, c/o Phil Mack, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-08-27
Citations: 289 F. App'x 610
Docket Number: No. 08-6869
Parties: David Lee DINKINS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SUMTER COUNTY, c/o William Noonan; Lee County, c/o Jimmy Mcoste; Simon Major, Jr., Director; Dr. Bush; Southern Health Partners, c/o Phil Mack, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 289
Pages: 610–610

Head Matter:
David Lee DINKINS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SUMTER COUNTY, c/o William Noonan; Lee County, c/o Jimmy Mcoste; Simon Major, Jr., Director; Dr. Bush; Southern Health Partners, c/o Phil Mack, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 08-6869.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Aug. 21, 2008.
Decided: Aug. 27, 2008.
David Lee Dinkins, Appellant Pro Se. James M. Davis, Jr., Joel Steve Hughes, Davidson, Morrison & Lindemann, PA, Columbia, South Carolina, Jerome Scott Kozacki, Willcox, Buyck and Williams, Florence, South Carolina, Andrew S. Halio, Elliott T. Halio, Halio & Halio, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Before WILLIAMS, Chief Judge, and KING and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
David Lee Dinkins appeals the district court's order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and granting summary judgment in favor of Defendants in Dinkins' civil action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000). While the magistrate judge advised Dinkins that failure to timely file specific written objections to the report would result in waiver of the right to appeal from the district court's judgment, Dinkins failed to file any objections to the magistrate judge's report and recommendation. Therefore, Dinkins has waived appellate review of his claims. See United States v. Midgette, 478 F.3d 616, 621-22 (4th Cir.2007). Accordingly, we affirm the district court's ruling and deny Dinkins' motion for appointment of counsel. 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.