Fortier v. Atencio ( 1996 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 95-6974
    MARK STEVEN FORTIER,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    versus
    PAUL ATENCIO, Agent for the South Carolina Law
    Enforcement Division,
    Defendant - Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    South Carolina, at Charleston. David C. Norton, District Judge.
    (CA-93-2519-2-18AJ)
    Submitted:   February 7, 1996          Decided:     February 21, 1996
    Before MURNAGHAN and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior
    Circuit Judge.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Mark Steven Fortier, Appellant Pro Se. William Henry Davidson, II,
    Elizabeth Newell Keenan, ELLIS, LAWHORNE, DAVIDSON & SIMS, P.A.,
    Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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
     (1988) complaint. 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 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
    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 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: 95-6974

Filed Date: 2/21/1996

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/18/2021