Court Opinion

ID: 996013
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 00:45:21.672222+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:44:56.265434
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                               No. 97-6951

JAMES R. EDGERTON,

                                                Plaintiff - Appellant,

          versus

SHERIFF OF FRANKLIN COUNTY; EARNEST H. SMITH,
Chief Jailer,

                                               Defendants - Appellees,

          and

FRANKLIN COUNTY JAIL,

                                                             Defendant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis-
trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District
Judge. (CA-94-327-5-CT-H)

Submitted:   August 13, 1998                 Decided:   August 28, 1998

Before WIDENER and WILKINS, Circuit Judges, and HALL, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James R. Edgerton, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Harrison Sasser, III,
WOMBLE, CARLYLE, SANDRIDGE & RICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

                                2
PER CURIAM:

     Appellant appeals the district court’s order dismissing his 42

U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) complaint. Appellant’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 Ap-

pellant that failure to file timely objections to this recommen-

dation could waive appellate review of a district court order based

upon the recommendation. Despite this warning, Appellant 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). Appellant has waived appellate review

by failing to file objections after receiving proper notice.

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. We dis-

pense 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

                                3