Court Opinion

ID: 1012609
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 20:47:46.488062+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:39:11.369981
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                            No. 04-6023

SAMUEL C. DAVIS,

                                              Plaintiff - Appellant,

          versus

SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,

                                              Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Anderson.   David C. Norton, District Judge.
(CA-03-3375)

Submitted: February 19, 2004              Decided:   February 26, 2004

Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Samuel C. Davis, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

           Samuel   C.   Davis    appeals   the   district   court’s   order

dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint.             The district

court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2000).         The magistrate judge recommended

that relief be denied and advised Davis that failure to timely file

objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review of

a district court order based upon the recommendation. Despite this

warning,   Davis    failed   to   object    to    the   magistrate   judge’s

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 that failure to object will waive appellate review.               See

Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985); see also

Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985).          Davis has waived appellate

review by failing to 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 the

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

                                                                     AFFIRMED

                                   - 2 -