Gilchrist v. Department of Veterans Affairs ( 2003 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-1050
HENRY FLOYD GILCHRIST,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
THE DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Spartanburg. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., District
Judge. (CA-01-2522-7)
Submitted: March 6, 2003 Decided: March 17, 2003
Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Henry Floyd Gilchrist, Appellant Pro Se. Robert F. Daley, Jr.,
Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Henry Floyd Gilchrist appeals the district court’s order
dismissing his civil action alleging employment discrimination.
Gilchrist’s case was referred to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2000). The magistrate judge recommended
that the employer’s motion for summary judgment be granted and
clearly advised Gilchrist that failure to file specific and timely
objections to his recommendation could waive appellate review of a
district court order based upon the recommendation. Despite this
warning, Gilchrist failed to file specific objections to the
magistrate judge’s recommendation.
Pursuant to § 636(b)(1), a district court is required to
conduct a de novo review of those portions of the magistrate
judge’s report to which a specific objection has been made. The
court need not conduct de novo review, however, “when a party makes
general and conclusory objections that do not direct the court to
a specific error in the magistrate’s proposed findings and
recommendations.” Orpiano v. Johnson, 687 F.2d 44, 47 (4th Cir.
1982); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). 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 so object will
waive appellate review. Orpiano, 687 F.3d at 47. As found by the
district court, Gilchrist has waived appellate review by failing to
2
direct the district court to specific errors in the magistrate
judge’s report and recommendation. United States v. Schronce, 727
F.2d 91, 93-94 (4th Cir. 1994) (failure to file objections waives
appellate review). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s
order.* 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
*
The district court also found that the magistrate judge’s
recommendation to grant summary judgment was correct, in any event,
as the record was undisputed that Gilchrist voluntarily left his
employment.
3