Grimes v. Barnhart , 211 F. App'x 202 ( 2006 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 06-1919
    GEORGIA GRIMES,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    versus
    JO ANNE B. BARNHART, Commissioner of Social
    Security; ROBERT J. PHARES; RALPH P. DOBBS;
    YVETTE RAINEE; CYNTHIA MOORE, Guard; EMPLOYEES
    OF HEARING AND APPEALS IN RALEIGH,
    Defendants - Appellees.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of North Carolina, at Greenville. Malcolm J. Howard,
    Senior District Judge. (4:05-cv-00160-H)
    Submitted: December 21, 2006              Decided:   December 28, 2006
    Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Georgia Grimes, Appellant Pro Se.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Georgia    Grimes   appeals    the   district   court’s   order
    dismissing her civil complaint as frivolous and for failure to
    state a claim upon which relief may be granted.      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 the
    complaint be dismissed and advised Grimes 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, Grimes 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).    Grimes 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 -
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 06-1919

Citation Numbers: 211 F. App'x 202

Judges: Niemeyer, Williams, King

Filed Date: 12/28/2006

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/19/2024