Pelzer v. Social Security ( 2004 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-1322
PAMELA PELZER,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
SOCIAL SECURITY DISABILITY; SOUTH CAROLINA
HOUSING AUTHORITY; WORKER COMPENSATION; BANK
OF AMERICA; FAMILY SERVICE; SOLOMAN SMITH
BARNEY; UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE; LEGAL
AID, Greenville, South Carolina; CITY HALL -
POLICE DEPARTMENT; MERRILL LYNCH INVESTMENT
FIRM; COLLETON COUNTY SHERIFF DEPARTMENT; US
GRANT,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston. Sol Blatt, Jr., Senior District
Judge. (CA-03-4035-2-08)
Submitted: April 29, 2004 Decided: May 5, 2004
Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Pamela Pelzer, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
Pamela Pelzer appeals from the district court’s order
dismissing her civil action. The district court referred this
case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B)
(2000). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied
and advised Pelzer that failure to timely file objections to this
recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court
order based upon the recommendation. Despite this warning, Pelzer
failed to object to the magistrate judge’s 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 that failure to object will waive appellate review. See
Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845!46 (4th Cir. 1985); see also
Thomas v. Arn , 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Pelzer 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
- 3 -