Jackson v. Evatt

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-6225
WALTER JACKSON,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
PARKER EVATT, Commissioner S.C.D.C.; FRANKIE
RICKENBAKER, Warden; EVELYN WARDLAW, Social
Worker; FRANK HARRISON, Chief; PAUL BOLLMAN,
Captain; SOUTH CAROLINA PAROLE AND PARDON
BOARD; MR. SMITH, Classification Supervisor,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Rock Hill. William B. Traxler, Jr., District
Judge. (CA-94-398-21BD)
Submitted: September 20, 1996 Decided: October 1, 1996
Before NIEMEYER, HAMILTON, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Walter Jackson, Appellant Pro Se. Douglas McKay, Jr., Daniel Roy
Settana, Jr., MCKAY, MCKAY, HENRY & FOSTER, P.A., Columbia, South
Carolina; Carl Norman Lundberg, SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF PRO-
BATION, PAROLE & PARDON SERVICES, Columbia, South Carolina, for
Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
2
PER CURIAM:
Appellant appeals the district court's order dismissing his 42
U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) complaint. Appellant's case was referred to a
magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (1994). The
magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Ap-
pellant that failure to file timely and specific objections to this
recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court
order based upon the recommendation. Despite this warning, Appel-
lant 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 object will waive appellate review. Wright
v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985); Orpiano v.
Johnson, 687 F.2d 44, 47 (4th Cir. 1982). See generally Thomas v.
Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Appellant has waived appellate review by
failing to file specific objections after receiving proper notice.
Accordingly, we deny Appellant's request for production of docu-
ments and 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
3