Court Opinion

ID: 1014865
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 21:23:57.938223+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:43:00.378590
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                            No. 04-7549

LARRY LADAIN MYERS,

                                              Plaintiff - Appellant,

          versus

VEDA PLAIR; KEITH MOORE, Officer; K. JENKINS,
Officer,

                                             Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Rock Hill.   G. Ross Anderson, Jr., District
Judge. (CA-04-1900-0-13BD)

Submitted:   November 18, 2004            Decided:   December 1, 2004

Before LUTTIG and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Larry LaDain Myers, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

           Larry LaDain Myers appeals the district court’s order

dismissing 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 Myers 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,   Myers   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).        Myers has waived appellate

review by failing to file 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 -