Washington v. Burns ( 2008 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-1924
DAVID J. WASHINGTON,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
DARYL L. BURNS, Marion County Magistrate; DIANE SCOTT; JUDGE
BRISTOW; SHERIFF MARK RICHARDSON,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge.
(4:08-cv-00316-RBH)
Submitted: November 20, 2008 Decided: November 25, 2008
Before MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
David J. Washington, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
David J. Washington appeals the district court’s order
denying relief on 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 Washington 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, Washington failed to file
specific objections 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 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).
Washington has waived appellate review by failing to timely file
specific objections after receiving proper notice. See United
States v. Midgette, 478 F.3d 616, 622 (4th Cir. 2007).
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. We
deny Washington’s motion for recusal, finding it meritless.
2
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