Irby v. Wallace ( 2007 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-7967
WILLIAM JOHN IRBY,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
ALAN WALLACE, D.E.A. Officer; J. P.
LOWDERMILK, Tactical Officer; W. P. GRAVES,
Vice Narcotics Agent,
Defendants - Appellees,
and
WALTER C. HOLTON, JR., U.S. Attorney,
Defendant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Durham. William L. Osteen, Senior
District Judge. (1:00-cv-00540)
Submitted: June 15, 2007 Decided: June 20, 2007
Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
William John Irby, Appellant Pro Se. Gill Paul Beck, OFFICE OF THE
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina; Richard
Thompson Wright, Joseph P. Gram, HILL, EVANS, DUNCAN, JORDAN &
DAVIS, PLLC, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
William John Irby appeals the district court’s order
denying relief on his civil action, which alleged that Drug
Enforcement Administration Officer Wallace and two state police
officers unlawfully seized personal property from Irby’s residence
and a storage facility subsequent to his arrest on drug charges.
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 Irby 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, Irby 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). Although Irby filed a general, two-sentence
objection to the magistrate judge’s recommendation, we find that he
waived appellate review by failing to file any specific objections
after receiving proper notice. See Page v. Lee, 337 F.3d 411, 416
n.3 (4th Cir. 2003). 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 -