Grant v. Crenshaw , 358 F. App'x 396 ( 2009 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-7748
GEORGE GRANT, JR.,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
DAVID CRENSHAW; JOEY PRESTON; CHRISSY T. ADAMS,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Beaufort. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., Senior
District Judge. (9:08-cv-02696-GRA)
Submitted: December 15, 2009 Decided: December 22, 2009
Before MICHAEL and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
George Grant, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. James Victor McDade,
DOYLE, O’ROURKE, TATE & MCDADE, PA, Anderson, South Carolina,
for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
George Grant appeals the district court’s order
denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint. The
district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2006). The magistrate judge
recommended that relief be denied and advised Grant 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, Grant failed to make
specific 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 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).
Grant 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