Jihad v. Gunn ( 1996 )


Menu:
  •                                UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 96-6670
    TAHRIM SUPREME C. JIHAD, a/k/a Vincent Edward
    Little,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    versus
    WILLIAM E.   GUNN;   RAYMOND    J.   ROSSI;    RHETT
    JACKSON,
    Defendants - Appellees.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    South Carolina, at Charleston. Cameron McGowan Currie, District
    Judge. (CA-95-3596-2-22AJ)
    Submitted:   November 21, 1996                Decided:   December 3, 1996
    Before HALL, WILKINS, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Tahrim Supreme C. Jihad, Appellant Pro Se. Carl Norman Lundberg,
    SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF PROBATION, PAROLE & PARDON SERVICES,
    Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).
    PER CURIAM:
    Appellant appeals the district court's order dismissing his 
    42 U.S.C. § 1983
     (1994) complaint. Appellant's case was referred to a
    magistrate judge pursuant to 
    28 U.S.C. § 636
    (b)(1)(B) (1994). The
    magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised
    Appellant that failure to file timely objections to this recommen-
    dation could waive appellate review of a district court order based
    upon the recommendation. Despite this warning, Appellant failed to
    object to the magistrate judge's recommendation.
    The timely filing of objections to a magistrate judge's rec-
    ommendation is necessary to preserve appellate review of the sub-
    stance of that recommendation when the parties have been warned
    that failure to object will waive appellate review. Wright v. Col-
    lins, 
    766 F.2d 841
    , 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985). See generally Thomas v.
    Arn, 
    474 U.S. 140
     (1985). Appellant has waived appellate review by
    failing to file objections after receiving proper notice. Accord-
    ingly, 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: 96-6670

Filed Date: 12/3/1996

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/18/2021