Sanders v. Raytheon Engineers

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 95-3011
LAUNEIL SANDERS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
RAYTHEON ENGINEERS AND CONSTRUCTORS, INCORPO-
RATED, a subsidiary of the Raytheon Company,
registered agent of Raytheon Engineers and
Constructors, Incorporated, Prentice-Hall Cor-
poration, 2019 Park Street, Columbia, South
Carolina 29201,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Greenville. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., District
Judge. (CA-95-49-6-3AK)
Submitted: May 16, 1996 Decided: May 28, 1996
Before RUSSELL, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Launeil Sanders, Appellant Pro Se. Paul Bernard Lindemann, Stephen
Floyd Fisher, JACKSON, LEWIS, SCHNITZLER & KRUPMAN, Greenville,
South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Appellant appeals the district court's order dismissing his
complaint alleging age discrimination, in violation of the Age
Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C.A. §§ 621-634 (West 1985
& Supp. 1995). Appellant's case was referred to a magistrate judge
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (1988). The magistrate judge
recommended that relief be denied and advised Appellant that fail-
ure to file timely objections to this recommendation could waive
appellate review of a district court order based upon the recommen-
dation. Despite this warning, Appellant failed to object to the
magistrate judge's recommendation.
The timely filing of objections to a magistrate judge's rec-
ommendation is necessary to preserve appellate review of the sub-
stance 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). See generally Thomas
v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Appellant has waived appellate review
by failing to file objections after receiving proper notice.
Accordingly, we grant Appellee's motion for summary affirmance. As
we conclude that the appeal is frivolous, we also grant Appellee's
motion for double costs, Fed. R. App. P. 38, but deny the motion
for attorney's fees. We dispense with oral argument because the
facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the mate-
rials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
AFFIRMED
2