Todd v. Geneva Convention, The , 283 F. App'x 88 ( 2008 )


Menu:
  •                              UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 08-1604
    LEAMON BRADLEY TODD, a/k/a Bradley Todd,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    v.
    GENEVA CONVENTION, THE; RENAISSANCE INNS; ABA MARSHAN MODELS;
    VENUS ENTERPRISES,
    Defendants - Appellees.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    South Carolina, at Columbia. Margaret B. Seymour, District Judge.
    (3:08-cv-00660-MBS)
    Submitted:   June 26, 2008                    Decided:   July 1, 2008
    Before KING and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior Circuit
    Judge.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Leamon Bradley Todd, Appellant Pro Se.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Leamon Bradley Todd appeals the district court’s order
    denying relief on his civil complaint for damages.          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 Todd 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,   Todd    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 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).     Todd has waived appellate review by failing to
    timely file specific 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 -
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 08-1604

Citation Numbers: 283 F. App'x 88

Judges: Duncan, King, Per Curiam, Wilkins

Filed Date: 7/1/2008

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/7/2023