Odom v. Potter , 81 F. App'x 801 ( 2003 )


Menu:
  •                                UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 03-1945
    WILLIAM N. ODOM, JR.,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    versus
    JOHN E. POTTER, in his capacity as Postmaster
    General,
    Defendant - Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, District Judge.
    (CA-02-346)
    Submitted:    November 19, 2003              Decided:   December 3, 2003
    Before WILKINSON and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
    Circuit Judge.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    William N. Odom, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Christopher John Burton,
    UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE, Washington, D.C., for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).
    PER CURIAM:
    William N. Odom, Jr., appeals the district court’s order
    dismissing his employment discrimination 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 Odom 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 and an extension of time in which to file, Odom 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).     Odom 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: 03-1945

Citation Numbers: 81 F. App'x 801

Judges: Wilkinson, Gregory, Hamilton

Filed Date: 12/3/2003

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/6/2024