Sherman v. United States District Court , 101 F. App'x 411 ( 2004 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-1298
CURLEE SHERMAN,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, Charleston
Division,
Defendant - Appellee.
No. 04-1299
CURLEE SHERMAN,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, Greenville
Division,
Defendant - Appellee.
No. 04-1300
CURLEE SHERMAN,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, Columbia
Division,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston, Greenville, and Columbia. Margaret
B. Seymour, District Judge. (CA-04-116-2; CA-04-117-6; CA-04-118-
3)
Submitted: June 9, 2004 Decided: June 28, 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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 order
dismissing his consolidated 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaints.
The district court referred these cases 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, deny
Sherman’s motions for general relief, 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 -