Court Opinion

ID: 1026109
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-05 07:00:53.542114+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:18:06.178828
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                             No. 08-1604

LEAMON BRADLEY TODD, a/k/a Bradley Todd,

                Plaintiff - Appellant,

          v.

GENEVA CONVENTION, THE; RENAISSANCE INNS; ABA MARSHAN MODELS;
VENUS ENTERPRISES,

                Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Columbia. Margaret B. Seymour, District Judge.
(3:08-cv-00660-MBS)

Submitted:   June 26, 2008                    Decided:   July 1, 2008

Before KING and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior Circuit
Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Leamon Bradley Todd, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

           Leamon Bradley Todd appeals the district court’s order

denying relief on his civil complaint for damages.          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 Todd 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,   Todd    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 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 (1985).     Todd has waived appellate review by failing to

timely file specific 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 -