Tisdale v. Conway Hospital ( 2006 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 05-7423
    CLAYTON HOWARD TISDALE,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    versus
    CONWAY HOSPITAL; LORIS COMMUNITY HOSPITAL,
    Defendants - Appellees.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    South Carolina, at Beaufort.    G. Ross Anderson, Jr., District
    Judge. (CA-05-1912-9-GRA)
    Submitted: February 23, 2006                    Decided: March 2, 2006
    Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Clayton Howard Tisdale, Appellant Pro Se.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).
    PER CURIAM:
    Clayton Tisdale seeks to appeal the district court's
    order dismissing his claim under 
    42 U.S.C. § 1983
     (2000).      The
    district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to
    
    28 U.S.C. § 636
    (b)(1)(B) (2000).   The magistrate judge recommended
    that relief be denied and advised Tisdale 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, Tisdale failed to object 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 that failure to object will waive appellate review.     See
    Wright v. Collins, 
    766 F.2d 841
    , 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985); see also
    Thomas v. Arn, 
    474 U.S. 140
     (1985).   Tisdale 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: 05-7423

Judges: Widener, Niemeyer, King

Filed Date: 3/2/2006

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024