Staley v. Marion County Detention Center , 259 F. App'x 570 ( 2007 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 07-6753
    DANIEL LEVERN STALEY,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    versus
    MARION COUNTY DETENTION CENTER; W. T. JOHNSON,
    Director, Marion County Detention Center;
    REGINA REED; ROSE BETHEA; RENEE CAESAR;
    OFFICER CAMPBELL; BETTY GAUSE,
    Defendants - Appellees.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    South Carolina, at Beaufort.    Patrick Michael Duffy, District
    Judge. (9:06-cv-03207-PMD)
    Submitted:   December 20, 2007         Decided:     December 26, 2007
    Before MICHAEL and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
    Circuit Judge.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Daniel Levern Staley, Appellant Pro Se.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Daniel Levern Staley 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 Staley that failure to file
    timely and specific objections to this recommendation could waive
    appellate   review    of   a   district    court   order   based   upon   the
    recommendation.      Despite this warning, Staley 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).     Staley 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: 07-6753

Citation Numbers: 259 F. App'x 570

Judges: Michael, King, Hamilton

Filed Date: 12/26/2007

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024