Sherman v. Marchant , 101 F. App'x 405 ( 2004 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-1334
CURLEE SHERMAN,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
BRISTOW MARCHANT,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Columbia. Margaret B. Seymour, District Judge.
(CA-04-311-3)
Submitted: June 9, 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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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).
PER CURIAM:
Curlee Sherman seeks to appeal the district court’s order
dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. 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 this recommendation could waive appellate
review of a district court order based upon the recommendation.
Despite this warning, Sherman 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). 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 appeal.
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
- 2 -