Case Name: Jerome HART, a/k/a Jerome V. Hart, a/k/a Jerome Vernard Hart, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. PIEDMONT MEDICAL, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-10-02
Citations: 540 F. App'x 241
Docket Number: No. 13-6529
Parties: Jerome HART, a/k/a Jerome V. Hart, a/k/a Jerome Vernard Hart, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. PIEDMONT MEDICAL, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before AGEE, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 540
Pages: 241–241

Head Matter:
Jerome HART, a/k/a Jerome V. Hart, a/k/a Jerome Vernard Hart, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. PIEDMONT MEDICAL, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 13-6529.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Sept. 17, 2018.
Decided: Oct. 2, 2013.
Jerome Hart, Appellant pro se.
Before AGEE, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Jerome Hart 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 magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 636(b)(1)(B) (West 2006 & Supp.2013). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Hart 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). Hart has waived appellate review by failing to timely file objections after receiving proper notice. 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.