McMillon v. Hagan

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-6038
CHARLES OSCAR MCMILLON,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
GEORGE T. HAGAN; STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District
Judge. (CA-02-3172-20BD)
Submitted: February 20, 2003 Decided: February 28, 2003
Before LUTTIG, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Charles Oscar McMillon, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Charles Oscar McMillon appeals the district court’s order
dismissing 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 McMillon 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, McMillon failed to file timely 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 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). McMillon has waived appellate
review by failing to file timely 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