Gilmore v. Inzerillo , 156 F. App'x 608 ( 2005 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-6883
TIM H. GILMORE, a/k/a Tim Henry Gilmore, a/k/a
Henry Tim Gilmore,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
MELISSA A. INZERILLO,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston. David C. Norton, District Judge.
(CA-05-1106-2)
Submitted: November 22, 2005 Decided: December 5, 2005
Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Tim H. Gilmore, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Tim H. Gilmore appeals the district court’s order
dismissing without prejudice his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint.
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 Gilmore 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, Gilmore 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). Gilmore 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 -