Court Opinion

ID: 1018598
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 22:22:52.306439+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:17:58.134214
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                            No. 05-7423

CLAYTON HOWARD TISDALE,

                                              Plaintiff - Appellant,

          versus

CONWAY HOSPITAL; LORIS COMMUNITY HOSPITAL,

                                             Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Beaufort.    G. Ross Anderson, Jr., District
Judge. (CA-05-1912-9-GRA)

Submitted: February 23, 2006                    Decided: March 2, 2006

Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Clayton Howard Tisdale, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

          Clayton Tisdale seeks to appeal the district court's

order dismissing his claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000).      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 Tisdale 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, Tisdale 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).   Tisdale 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 -