Penland v. The Honorable Judge Couch , 315 F. App'x 495 ( 2009 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-8495
CHARLES W. PENLAND, SR.,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
THE HONORABLE JUDGE COUCH; LARRY W. PROPES, Clerk of Court
Columbia; KENNETH REINSTAFF, Clerk of Court Spartanburg
County South Carolina; STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Spartanburg. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District
Judge. (7:08-cv-03104-HMH)
Submitted: February 26, 2009 Decided: March 9, 2009
Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Charles W. Penland, Sr., Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Charles W. Penland, Sr., appeals the district court’s
order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) civil rights
complaint. The district court referred this case to a
magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2006).
The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and
advised Penland that failure to file specific objections to this
recommendation would waive appellate review of a district court
order based upon the recommendation. Although Penland filed a
response to the magistrate judge’s recommendation, he did not
specifically object to the dispositive portions of 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. United States v. Midgette, 478 F.3d 616, 621-22
(4th Cir. 2007); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985).
Penland has waived appellate review by failing to 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
2
before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
AFFIRMED
3