Odum v. Intl Longshoremen

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 98-2016
GEORGE ELWOOD ODUM,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
INTERNATIONAL LONGSHOREMEN’S ASSOCIATION,
Local 1751 of Georgetown, South Carolina,
Defendant - Appellee,
and
INTERNATIONAL LONGSHOREMEN’S ASSOCIATION,
Defendant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston. Patrick Michael Duffy, District
Judge. (CA-96-3798-2-23)
Submitted: January 21, 1999 Decided: February 3, 1999
Before LUTTIG, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
George Elwood Odum, Appellant Pro Se. Grover Cleveland Seaton,
III, Moncks Corner, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
George Elwood Odum appeals the district court’s orders dis-
missing his 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2 (1994) complaint and denying his
motion for reconsideration. Odum’s case was referred to a magis-
trate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (1994). The mag-
istrate judge recommended that the union’s summary judgment motion
be granted. The district court adopted the magistrate’s report and
recommendation. See Odum v. International Longshoremen’s Ass’n,
No. CA-96-3798-2-23 (D.S.C. May 19, 1998).*
The timely filing of objections to a magistrate judge’s
recommendation is necessary to preserve appellate review of the
substance of that recommendation. See Wells v. Shriners Hosp., 109
F.3d 198, 201 (4th Cir. 1997); see generally Thomas v. Arn, 474
U.S. 140 (1985). Odum has waived appellate review by failing to
timely file objections. Further, the district court did not abuse
its discretion in denying Odum’s motion for reconsideration, be-
cause Odum’s objections were not timely filed. See Fed. R. Civ. P.
72(b); Orpiano v. Johnson, 687 F.2d 44, 47 (4th Cir. 1982). Ac-
cordingly, we dismiss the appeal. 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. DISMISSED
*
The district court’s order was filed on May 14, 1998; the
judgment and the order were both entered on the docket on May 19,
1998. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 58, 79(a).
2