Gregg-Wilson v. Roveri

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-1567
MICHAEL GREGG-WILSON,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
JOHN ROVERI; STUART A. LIDDELL; JO R. WHITE;
ZONA JEFFERSON; EDWARD ALSTON; FRANK BAKER;
WESLEY BLANDING; CHARLES BURNS; TOM GARRITY;
JAMES GRIFFIN; KAY RAFFIELD; KURT WELDAY,
Defendants - Appellees,
and
ELMER EDWIN JACKSON, Machine Tool Instructor
SCCC; LARRY CULICK; WILLIAM DYSON; CHARLES J.
BOYKIN,
Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Columbia. Margaret B. Seymour, District Judge.
(3:04-cv-23132-MBS)
Submitted: April 16, 2007 Decided: April 20, 2007
Before WILKINSON and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Michael Gregg-Wilson, Appellant Pro Se. Charles J. Boykin, Jamila
B. Minnicks, BOYKIN, DAVIS, HAWKINS & CALDWELL, Columbia, South
Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
Michael Gregg-Wilson appeals the district court’s orders
denying relief on his civil complaint filed under 42 U.S.C.
§§ 1981, 1983, 1985(3) (2000). 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 on
all but Gregg-Wilson’s First Amendment claim and advised Gregg-
Wilson that failure to file specific objections to this
recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court
order based upon the recommendation. Despite this warning, Gregg-
Wilson failed to object specifically to the magistrate judge’s
recommendations.
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). Gregg-Wilson has waived appellate review by
failing to file specific objections after receiving proper notice.
See Page v. Lee, 337 F.3d 411, 416 n.3 (4th Cir. 2003).
With regard to the First Amendment claim, the district
court entered a subsequent order granting summary judgment in favor
of Defendants on the ground that Defendants’ interest in ensuring
the efficient operation of the vocational school outweighed
- 3 -
Gregg-Wilson’s right to free speech. Because Gregg-Wilson did not
challenge this finding in his informal brief filed in this court,
he has waived appellate review of that issue. See 4th Cir. R.
34(b) (“The Court will limit its review to the issues raised in the
informal brief.”).
For these reasons, we affirm. 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
- 4 -