Holmes v. Miro ( 1996 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 95-7578
MAURICE HOLMES,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
GERALDINE MIRO; RICHARD J. MCCANTS; CAPTAIN
HESTER; OFFICER TUTEN,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston. David C. Norton, District Judge.
(CA-94-2595-2-18AJ)
Submitted: February 7, 1996 Decided: February 22, 1996
Before MURNAGHAN and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Maurice Holmes, Appellant Pro Se. James Michael Holly, BRAITH-
WAITE, MCCANTS & SMITH, Aiken, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Appellant appeals the district court's order dismissing his 42
U.S.C. § 1983 (1988) complaint. Appellant's case was referred to a
magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (1988). The
magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised
Appellant that failure to file timely objections to this recommen-
dation could waive appellate review of a district court order based
upon the recommendation. Despite this warning, Appellant failed to
object to the magistrate judge's recommendation.
The timely filing of 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. Wright v.
Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985). See generally Thomas
v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Appellant 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