Allen v. Carrington ( 2010 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-7885
WILLIAM DALE ALLEN, SR.,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
LISA CARRINGTON, in her individual capacity; VERA JENKINS,
in her individual capacity; STAN BURTT, in his individual
capacity; JON OZMINT, Director, South Carolina Department of
Corrections,
Defendants – Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence. David C. Norton, Chief District
Judge. (4:07-cv-00797-DCN)
Submitted: March 16, 2010 Decided: March 22, 2010
Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
William Dale Allen, Sr., Appellant Pro Se. Robert Holmes Hood,
HOOD LAW FIRM, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
William Dale Allen, Sr., 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 Allen 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, Allen 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 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).
Allen 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
before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
AFFIRMED
2