Miller v. Hunt, (4th Cir. 1996)

Text

---

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-6638

JAMES BYRD MILLER, Plaintiff - Appellant, and

WARREN H. COX, Plaintiff, versus

JAMES B. HUNT, Governor; FRANKLIN E. FREEMAN,

JR.; NORTH CAROLINA PRISONER LEGAL SERVICES,

INCORPORATED; MARVIN SPARROW; MARTIN SUPERIN-

TENDENT OF CUSTODY MCDADE, Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis-

trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Chief District

Judge. (CA-94-289-5-F)

Submitted: August 22, 1996 Decided: September 10, 1996

Before HALL, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James Byrd Miller, Appellant Pro Se. Jane Ray Garvey, OFFICE OF

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NORTH CAROLINA, Raleigh, North Carolina,

for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 42 U.S.C. 1983 (1988) complaint. 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 failure to file timely objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the recommendation. Despite this warning, Appellant failed to object to the magistrate judge's recommendation.

The timely filing of 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 r eview. 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 affirm. 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

---