Dealy v. Richardson

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-7533
NICHOLAS DEALY,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
RICHARDSON, Captain; COMMONWEALTH ATTORNEY;
JUDGE LEARNER, Hampton City Circuit Court;
DIRECTOR, VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS;
JOHN & JANE DOE, and all deputies that worked
the floor,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, District
Judge. (CA-05-125-HEH)
Submitted: January 26, 2006 Decided: February 3, 2006
Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Nicholas Dealy, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Nicholas Dealy seeks to appeal the district court's order
dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) action. 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 Dealy 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, Dealy failed to object 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). Dealy 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 -