Court Opinion

ID: 1009848
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 20:02:36.75785+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:01:22.251083
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                            No. 03-6038

CHARLES OSCAR MCMILLON,

                                              Plaintiff - Appellant,

          versus

GEORGE T. HAGAN; STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA,

                                            Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Rock Hill.   Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District
Judge. (CA-02-3172-20BD)

Submitted:   February 20, 2003         Decided:     February 28, 2003

Before LUTTIG, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Charles Oscar McMillon, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

     Charles Oscar McMillon 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 McMillon 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,   McMillon   failed   to   file    timely   objections   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).        McMillon has waived appellate

review by failing to file timely 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