Alexander v. Spartanburg Public Safety Department ( 2006 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-2014
RAY ALEXANDER, JR.,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
SPARTANBURG PUBLIC SAFETY DEPARTMENT;
SC PUBLIC SAFETY DEPARTMENT,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Spartanburg. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District
Judge. (7:06-cv-02085-HMH)
Submitted: November 21, 2006 Decided: November 29, 2006
Before TRAXLER and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Ray Alexander, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Ray Alexander, Jr. appeals the district court’s order
dismissing without prejudice 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 Alexander that
failure to timely file specific objections to this recommendation
could waive appellate review of a district court order based upon
the recommendation. Despite this warning, Alexander 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 that failure to specifically object will waive appellate
review. See Page v. Lee, 337 F.3d 411, 416 n.3 (4th Cir. 2003);
see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); Wright v. Collins,
766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985). Alexander has waived
appellate review by failing to timely 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 -