Sherman v. Palmetto Manufacturing Co. , 101 F. App'x 404 ( 2004 )


Menu:
  •                              UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 04-1301
    CURLEE SHERMAN,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    versus
    PALMETTO MANUFACTURING COMPANY,
    Defendant - Appellee.
    No. 04-1302
    CURLEE SHERMAN,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    versus
    PALMETTO MANUFACTURING COMPANY,
    Defendant - Appellee.
    Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of
    South Carolina, at Orangeburg.     Margaret B. Seymour, District
    Judge. (CA-03-4139-3; CA-03-4140-5)
    Submitted:   June 10, 2004                 Decided:   June 24, 2004
    Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Curlee Sherman, Appellant Pro Se.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).
    - 2 -
    PER CURIAM:
    Curlee Sherman seeks to appeal the district court’s
    orders dismissing his employment discrimination complaints.              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 Sherman that failure to file
    timely objections to the recommendation in each case could waive
    appellate   review   of   a   district    court   order   based   upon   the
    recommendations. Despite this warning, Sherman failed to object to
    the magistrate judge’s recommendations.
    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).        Sherman has waived appellate
    review by failing to file objections after receiving proper notice.
    Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss
    the appeals.
    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.
    DISMISSED
    - 3 -
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 04-1301

Citation Numbers: 101 F. App'x 404

Judges: Duncan, Niemeyer, Per Curiam, Williams

Filed Date: 6/24/2004

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/6/2023