Barfield v. Sanford

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-6726
BENNY BARFIELD,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
HONORABLE MARK SANFORD, Governor; JOHN MCGILL, Director
SCDMH; CHAD LOMINICK, Director SVPTP; JON OZMIT, Director
SCDC; ROBERT STEVENSON, Warden SCDC,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Greenville. Patrick Michael Duffy, Senior
District Judge. (6:09-cv-00850-PDM)
Submitted: August 19, 2010 Decided: August 30, 2010
Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Benny Barfield, Appellant Pro Se. William Henry Davidson, II,
Joel Steve Hughes, Kenneth Paul Woodington, DAVIDSON, MORRISON &
LINDEMANN, PA, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Benny Barfield appeals the district court’s order
denying relief on his 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 Barfield that
failure to file timely 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).
Barfield 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