Court Opinion

ID: 996675
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 00:54:10.054414+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:19:23.125789
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                            No. 98-6992

ROY BENJAMIN SALLEY,

                                              Plaintiff - Appellant,

          versus

TRAVIS AVANT, Sheriff of Colleton City Jail,

                                               Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston. David C. Norton, District Judge.
(CA-97-1019-2-18AJ)

Submitted:   September 30, 1998           Decided:   October 20, 1998

Before ERVIN, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Roy Benjamin Salley, Appellant Pro Se. Christy Scott Stephens,
BOGOSLOW & JONES, Walterboro, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:

     Roy Benjamin Salley appeals the district court’s order dis-

missing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) complaint. Salley’s 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 Salley that failure to file timely objections to this

recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court

order based upon the recommendation. Despite this warning, Salley

failed to object to the magistrate judge’s recommendation.

     The timely filing of 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

that failure to object will waive appellate review. See Wright v.

Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985). See generally Thomas

v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Salley has waived appellate review by

failing to file objections after receiving proper notice. Accord-

ingly, 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 the court and argument

would not aid the decisional process.

                                                          AFFIRMED

                                 2