Bagley v. Causey ( 1996 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 95-7326
BERNARD BAGLEY,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
DALE CAUSEY; CHRIS SIUNARD; ESCOD INDUSTRIES
BOARD OF DIRECTORS; WILLIAM R. DAVIS, ECI
Warden; GENE BAKER, ECI Prison Industry; LINDA
WILLIAMS, ECI Classification; SOUTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS BOARD MEMBERS; SOUTH
CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston. Solomon Blatt, Jr., Senior District
Judge. (CA-95-594-2-8AJ, CA-95-595-2-8AJ)
Submitted: January 18, 1996 Decided: February 15, 1996
Before HAMILTON and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and CHAPMAN, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Bernard Bagley, Appellant Pro Se. Daniel Malloy McEachin, Jr.,
Florence, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Appellant appeals from the district court's orders dismissing
his two consolidated 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988) complaints. Appel-
lant's cases were referred to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (1988). The magistrate judge recommended that
relief be denied and advised Appellant that failure to file timely
objections to the recommendations could waive appellate review of
the district court orders based upon the recommendations. Despite
this warning, Appellant failed to object to the magistrate judge's
recommendations.
The timely filing of 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. Wright v.
Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985). See generally Thomas
v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Appellant 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