Myers v. Plair , 114 F. App'x 112 ( 2004 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 04-7549
    LARRY LADAIN MYERS,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    versus
    VEDA PLAIR; KEITH MOORE, Officer; K. JENKINS,
    Officer,
    Defendants - Appellees.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    South Carolina, at Rock Hill.   G. Ross Anderson, Jr., District
    Judge. (CA-04-1900-0-13BD)
    Submitted:   November 18, 2004            Decided:   December 1, 2004
    Before LUTTIG and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
    Circuit Judge.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Larry LaDain Myers, Appellant Pro Se.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).
    PER CURIAM:
    Larry LaDain Myers appeals the district court’s order
    dismissing 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 Myers 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,   Myers   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 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).        Myers 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 -
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 04-7549

Citation Numbers: 114 F. App'x 112

Judges: Luttig, Gregory, Hamilton

Filed Date: 12/1/2004

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024