Yancey v. Ellis, Corr Officer , 210 F. App'x 230 ( 2006 )


Menu:
  •                                UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 06-7140
    BENJAMIN YANCEY,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    versus
    CORRECTIONAL   OFFICER   ELLIS;      CORRECTIONAL
    OFFICER   HARELLEL;   SERGEANT,      CORRECTIONAL
    OFFICER, STEARN,
    Defendants - Appellees.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Richmond.   James R. Spencer, Chief
    District Judge. (3:05-cv-00841-JRS)
    Submitted:    November 15, 2006           Decided:     December 18, 2006
    Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Benjamin Yancey, Appellant Pro Se.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Benjamin   Yancey   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 Yancey 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, Yancey 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).   Yancey 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 -
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 06-7140

Citation Numbers: 210 F. App'x 230

Judges: Wilkinson, Michael, King

Filed Date: 12/18/2006

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024