Blowe v. Patterson ( 1997 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-2327
PAUL M. BLOWE,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
KIMBERLY R. PATTERSON,
Defendant - Appellee.
No. 96-2328
PAUL M. BLOWE,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
JEFFREY L. STREDLER,
Defendant - Appellee.
No. 96-2329
PAUL M. BLOWE,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
2
VIRGINIA STATE BAR, Second District Committee,
Section II,
Defendant - Appellee.
No. 96-2330
PAUL M. BLOWE,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, Department of Trans-
portation Roads Right of Way VDOT Engineering
by James C. Cleveland,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis-
trict of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca B. Smith, District Judge.
(CA-96-633-2, CA-96-634-2, CA-96-635-2, CA-96-636-2)
Submitted: January 23, 1997 Decided: January 28, 1997
Before RUSSELL, WILKINS, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Paul M. Blowe, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
3
PER CURIAM:
Appellant appeals the district court's orders dismissing his
four 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) complaints. Appellant's cases were
referred to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B)
(1994). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and
advised Appellant 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, Appel-
lant failed to object to the magistrate judge's recommendation.
The timely filing of 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. Wright v.
Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985). See generally Thomas
v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Appellant has waived appellate review
by failing to file objections after receiving proper notice.
Accordingly, we affirm the judgments 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
4