Williams v. Bell ( 1996 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 95-7567
LEE ROBERT WILLIAMS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
SERGEANT BELL; OFFICER BOONE; OFFICER WIGGINS;
TALMADGE L. BARNETT; CAPTAIN DAIL; LIEUTENANT
RICHARDSON; SERGEANT JOHNSON; SERGEANT
ELLIOTT,
Defendants - Appellees,
and
DOCTOR STANLEY,
Defendant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis-
trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District
Judge. (CA-93-291-H)
Submitted: February 7, 1996 Decided: February 22, 1996
Before MURNAGHAN and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Lee Robert Williams, Appellant Pro Se. Sylvia Hargett Thibaut,
Assistant Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
2
PER CURIAM:
Appellant appeals the district court's orders denying relief
in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988) action. We have reviewed the record
and the district court's opinion dismissing the claims against
Defendant Carraway under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) (1988). We find no
reversible error, and accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of
the district court. Williams v. Bell, No. CA-93-291-H (E.D.N.C.
Nov. 17, 1993).
With regard to the grant of summary judgment in favor of the
remaining defendants, Appellant's case was referred to a magistrate
judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (1988). The magistrate
judge recommended that the motion be granted and advised Appellant
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, Appellant 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. Wright v.
Collins, 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.
Accordingly, we affirm the order of the district court. We dispense
with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
3
adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument
would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
4