Court Opinion

ID: 1022301
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 23:20:03.483425+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:15:57.549023
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                              No. 06-2037

HANNAH HICKMON,

                                              Plaintiff - Appellant,

          versus

MARY BETH HARLEE; CHARLES J. CUNNING, Doctor;
PENNI   GRIFFIN;   WALT  GRIFFIN;   LIMESTONE
COLLEGE,

                                             Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Spartanburg. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., District
Judge. (7:06-cv-01504-GRA)

Submitted:   March 28, 2007                 Decided:   April 12, 2007

Before MICHAEL, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Hannah Hickmon, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

          Hannah Hickmon appeals the district court’s order denying

relief on her 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 Hickmon 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, Hickmon 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). Hickmon 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 -