Court Opinion

ID: 1022921
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 23:30:00.310107+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:22:34.433704
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                            No. 07-6080

ATIF CHARLES,

                                              Plaintiff - Appellant,

          versus

DANIEL T. MAHON, Warden; MEDICAL DEPARTMENT,
Haynesville Correctional Center,

                                           Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond.  Robert E. Payne, District
Judge. (3:06-cv-00114-REP)

Submitted: June 21, 2007                      Decided:   June 27, 2007

Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Atif Charles, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

          Atif Charles appeals the district court’s order denying

relief on 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 Charles 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, Charles 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). Charles 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 -