Green v. SC Probation ( 2003 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-7632
KENNETH BERNARD GREEN,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
SOUTH CAROLINA PROBATION, PAROLE AND PARDON
SERVICES; SOUTH CAROLINA ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
JUDGE DIVISION CLERK,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Beaufort. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District Judge.
(CA-03-1629-9-20)
Submitted: December 11, 2003 Decided: December 23, 2003
Before NIEMEYER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Kenneth Bernard Green, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Kenneth Bernard Green appeals the district court’s order
dismissing 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
dismissing the case pursuant to the three strikes rule, see 28
U.S.C. § 1915(g) (2000), and advised Green 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, the majority of Green’s
objections to the magistrate judge’s recommendation were
nonspecific and irrelevant.
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). Although the district court
found that Green filed a specific objection to the magistrate
judge’s determination that Green was not in imminent danger of
serious physical harm, we find that Green has waived this issue on
appeal by failing to raise it in his informal brief. See 4th Cir.
R. 34(b). We further find that Green has waived appellate review of
the remainder of his claims by failing to file any other specific
2
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
3