Court Opinion

ID: 1013619
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 21:04:08.937141+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:39:57.301832
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                             No. 04-1355

CURLEE SHERMAN,

                                            Plaintiff - Appellant,

          versus

MID-STATE HOMES, INCORPORATED,

                                               Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Orangeburg.    Margaret B. Seymour, District
Judge. (CA-03-4073-5)

Submitted:   June 18, 2004                  Decided:   July 1, 2004

Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Curlee Sherman, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

          Curlee Sherman seeks to appeal the district court’s order

dismissing his civil 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 Sherman 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, Sherman

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).   Sherman has waived appellate

review by failing to file objections after receiving proper notice.

Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss

the appeal.

          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.

                                                         DISMISSED

                              - 2 -