Wise v. Sheedy

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-7187
GARY L. WISE,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
MICHAEL SHEEDY, Warden; MR. ICKERS, Mailroom
Clerk; MR. BAGNAL, Principal; MR. RAINWATER;
OFFICER HAM; LIBRARIAN HOLIDAY; MAJOR
BLACKWELL; M. HESTLE; SERGEANT GARDNER,
Defendants - Appellees.
and
SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,
Defendant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Greenville. Henry F. Floyd, District Judge.
(CA-05-8-9-HFF)
Submitted: November 22, 2005 Decided: December 7, 2005
Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Gary L. Wise, Appellant Pro Se. John Evans James, III, LEE, ERTER,
WILSON, JAMES, HOLLER & SMITH, L.L.C., Sumter, South Carolina, for
Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
Gary L. Wise appeals the district court's order
dismissing without prejudice 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 construing Wise’s motion for leave to exhaust
administrative remedies as a motion to dismiss without prejudice
and granting the motion. The magistrate judge also advised Wise
that failure to file timely objections to this recommendation would
waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the
recommendation. Despite this warning, Wise 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). Wise has waived appellate
review by failing to file objections after receiving proper notice.
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.
- 3 -
We deny Wise's motions for appointment of counsel and for
an injunction. 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 -