Greenway v. Toney , 210 F. App'x 309 ( 2006 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-1858
PATRICIA LEE GREENWAY,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
JACK DYE; A. H. SKARDON; T. T. THOMPSON,
Defendants - Appellees.
and
IVAN J. TONEY; KIM R. VARNER; JAMES W. SEGURA;
JANE DOE; LAW ENFORCEMENT CENTER; NELA
LAUGHRIDGE,
Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Greenville. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., District
Judge. (6:05-cv-01736-GRA)
Submitted: December 14, 2006 Decided: December 18, 2006
Before MICHAEL, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Patricia Lee Greenway, Appellant Pro Se. Debra J. Gammons, CITY OF
GREENVILLE, Greenville, South Carolina; Marshall Winn, WYCHE,
BURGESS, FREEMAN & PARHAM, PA, Greenville, South Carolina; David W.
Hartman, CLARKSON, WALSH, RHENEY & TERRELL, PA, Greenville, South
Carolina; Charles Franklin Turner, Jr., TURNER, PADGET, GRAHAM &
LANEY, PA, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Patricia Lee Greenway appeals the district court’s orders
denying relief on her 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 Greenway that failure to file
timely specific objections to the recommendation could waive
appellate review of a district court order based upon the
recommendation. Despite this warning, Greenway failed to file
specific objections 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). Greenway has waived appellate review by failing
to file specific objections after receiving proper notice.
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.
- 2 -
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
- 3 -