Scott v. Korkut ( 1999 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 99-6491
MARION SCOTT,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
EBID KORKUT, MD/PA; ERIN BEATY, Radiologist,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Orangeburg. Matthew J. Perry, Jr., Senior Dis-
trict Judge. (CA-98-323-5-10BD)
Submitted: June 17, 1999 Decided: June 25, 1999
Before MURNAGHAN and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Marion Scott, Appellant Pro Se. Charles Elford Carpenter, Jr., S.
Elizabeth Brosnan, RICHARDSON, PLOWDEN, CARPENTER & ROBINSON,
Columbia, South Carolina; Marian Williams Scalise, RICHARDSON,
PLOWDEN, CARPENTER & ROBINSON, Myrtle Beach, South Carolina; James
Miller Davis, Jr., DAVIDSON, MORRISON & LINDEMANN, P.A., Columbia,
South Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Marion Scott appeals the district court’s order dismissing his
42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 1999) complaint. Scott’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 Scott 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, Scott
failed to object to the magistrate judge’s recommendation.
The timely filing of 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 generally Thomas
v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Scott 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 ade-
quately presented in the materials before the court and argument
would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
2