Black v. Potter , 286 F. App'x 841 ( 2008 )


Menu:
  •                               UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 08-1465
    FRANK BLACK,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    v.
    JOHN E.    POTTER,    Postmaster   General,   United   States   Postal
    Service,
    Defendant - Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the South
    Carolina, at Florence. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge. (4:06-cv-
    00899-TLW)
    Submitted:   July 22, 2008                     Decided:   July 24, 2008
    Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Frank Black, Appellant Pro Se. Christie Valerie Newman, Assistant
    United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Frank Black appeals the district court’s order granting
    the Defendant’s motion for summary judgment and denying relief to
    Black in his civil action.     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 the Defendant’s motion for
    summary judgment be granted and advised Black 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,   Black    failed   to   timely   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).    Black 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: 08-1465

Citation Numbers: 286 F. App'x 841

Judges: Wilkinson, Motz, Shedd

Filed Date: 7/24/2008

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/19/2024