Waugh v. United States ( 2004 )


Menu:
  •                              UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 03-2264
    GARY RICHARD WAUGH,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    versus
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Defendant - Appellee,
    and
    FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS,
    Defendant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
    District of West Virginia, at Charleston. John T. Copenhaver, Jr.,
    District Judge. (CA-02-332)
    Submitted: February 19, 2004               Decided:   February 24, 2004
    Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Gary Richard Waugh, Appellant Pro Se. Sandra Henson Kinney, OFFICE
    OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charleston, West Virginia, for
    Appellees.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).
    PER CURIAM:
    Gary   R.   Waugh   appeals    the   district   court’s   order
    dismissing his complaint made under the Federal Torts Claim Act.
    See 
    28 U.S.C. §§ 2671-2680
    .    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
    Waugh 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, Waugh 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).        Waugh 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
    - 2 -
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 03-2264

Filed Date: 2/24/2004

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/31/2014