Court Opinion

ID: 1011080
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 20:21:49.237265+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:40:41.300852
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                             No. 03-7000

ALTERIC HUNT,

                                              Plaintiff - Appellant,

          versus

KIRKLAND R&E,

                                              Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Greenville. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., District
Judge. (CA-03-58-6-13AK)

Submitted:   July 10, 2003                 Decided:    July 17, 2003

Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Alteric Hunt, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

     Alteric Hunt appeals the district court’s order dismissing

without prejudice 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 Hunt 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,   Hunt   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).            Hunt 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