Beckman v. Phillips ( 2002 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 01-7690
    HENRY ALLEN BECKMAN,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    versus
    CYNTHIA PHILLIPS, Nurse; PATRICIA POWELL;
    RHONDA GRAHAM, all in their official and
    individual capacities; DONALD SAMPSON, Doctor,
    Defendants - Appellees.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    South Carolina, at Spartanburg. Patrick Michael Duffy, District
    Judge. (CA-00-1498-7)
    Submitted:   January 17, 2002             Decided:   January 29, 2002
    Before WILKINS and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
    Circuit Judge.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Henry Allen Beckman, Appellant Pro Se.     Andrew Foster McLeod,
    HARRIS & MCLEOD, Cheraw, South Carolina, for Appellees.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).
    PER CURIAM:
    Henry    Allen   Beckman   appeals   the   district   court’s   order
    dismissing his 
    42 U.S.C.A. § 1983
     (West Supp. 2001) complaint.
    Beckman’s case was referred to a magistrate judge pursuant to 
    28 U.S.C. § 636
    (b)(1)(B) (1994).        The magistrate judge recommended
    that relief be denied and advised Beckman 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, Beckman failed to object to the magistrate
    judge’s recommendation.
    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.         See Wright v.
    Collins, 
    766 F.2d 841
    , 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985); see also Thomas v.
    Arn, 
    474 U.S. 140
     (1985).       Beckman has waived appellate review by
    failing to file objections after receiving proper notice.        Accord-
    ingly, 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: 01-7690

Judges: Wilkins, King, Hamilton

Filed Date: 1/29/2002

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024