DeLoach v. South Carolina Department of Corrections , 355 F. App'x 681 ( 2009 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-7297
TONY DELOACH,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; BERNARD MCKIE;
DAVID TARTARSKY; MS. HILL, IGC; JOHN AND JANE DOES,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior
District Judge. (4:08-cv-03113-HMH)
Submitted: November 13, 2009 Decided: December 3, 2009
Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Tony DeLoach, Appellant Pro Se. Roy F. Laney, Heath McAlvin
Stewart, III, RILEY, POPE & LANEY, LLC, Columbia, South
Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Tony DeLoach 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 DeLoach that
failure to timely file specific objections to this
recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court
order based upon the recommendation. Despite this warning,
DeLoach failed to timely file specific objections to the
magistrate judge’s report and 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).
DeLoach has waived appellate review by failing to timely 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
2
before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
AFFIRMED
3