Bell v. Officer Taylor , 283 F. App'x 117 ( 2008 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-6579
ALEXANDER BELL, a/k/a Sulyaman Al wa Salaam, a/k/a Sulyaman
Alislam Wa Salaam,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
OFFICER TAYLOR; OFFICER FNU LAPETT; OFFICER STALLING; OFFICER
FNU CALLAHAND; OFFICER FNU POOR; OFFICER HUDSON; OFFICER FNU
GREY; MAJOR FNU MYERS; OFFICER DASH,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Rock Hill. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., District
Judge. (0:07-cv-00922-GRA)
Submitted: June 26, 2008 Decided: July 3, 2008
Before KING and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior Circuit
Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Alexander Bell, Appellant Pro Se. William Henry Davidson, II,
Daniel C. Plyler, DAVIDSON, MORRISON & LINDEMANN, PA, Columbia,
South Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Alexander Bell seeks to appeal the district court’s order
denying relief on 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 Bell 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, Bell failed to specifically 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). Bell has waived appellate review by failing to
timely file specific objections after receiving proper notice.
Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss
the appeal.
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.
DISMISSED
- 2 -