Green v. South Carolina Dept ( 2003 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 03-7590
    KENNETH BERNARD GREEN,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    versus
    SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
    OFFICIALS; STEVEN A. GOLDEN; SOUTH CAROLINA
    DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS INTERNAL AFFAIRS;
    SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
    ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DIVISION, each in
    their individual capacity,
    Defendants - Appellees.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    South Carolina, at Beaufort. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District Judge.
    (CA-03-2250-9-20)
    Submitted:   December 11, 2003         Decided:     December 23, 2003
    Before NIEMEYER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
    Circuit Judge.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Kenneth Bernard Green, Appellant Pro Se.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).
    PER CURIAM:
    Kenneth Bernard Green 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
    dismissing the case pursuant to the three strikes rule, see 
    28 U.S.C. § 1915
    (g) (2000), and advised Green that failure to file
    timely, specific objections to this recommendation could waive
    appellate   review   of   a   district   court   order   based   upon   the
    recommendation. Despite this warning, Green filed only nonspecific
    and irrelevant 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).        Green has waived appellate
    review by failing to 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: 03-7590

Filed Date: 12/23/2003

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/30/2014