Gadeson v. Reynolds

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-8211
HERMAN GADESON, a/k/a Herman Gadsen,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
REYNOLDS, Warden; JON OZMINT, Director; ROBERT WARD,
Divisional Director all in their official and individual
capacities,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston. Cameron McGowan Currie, District
Judge. (2:08-cv-03702-CMC)
Submitted: August 19, 2010 Decided: August 26, 2010
Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Herman Gadeson, Appellant Pro Se. Christy L. Scott, SCOTT &
PAYNE LAW FIRM, Walterboro, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Herman Gadeson appeals the district court’s order
denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint. The
district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant
to 28 U.S.C.A. § 636(b)(1)(B) (West 2006 & Supp. 2010). The
magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised
Gadeson that failure to file timely and specific objections to
this recommendation could waive appellate review of a district
court order based upon the 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 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).
Gadeson 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