Hamlet v. Page , 201 F. App'x 173 ( 2006 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-6530
TIMOTHY L. HAMLET,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
JAMES PAGE, Deputy; CHARLENE WILSON, Sergeant,
Defendants - Appellees,
and
KEVIN WASHINGTON, Sheriff of WCSD;
WILLIAMSBURG COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT,
Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge.
(4:04-cv-22051-RBH)
Submitted: September 26, 2006 Decided: September 29, 2006
Before WIDENER and WILKINSON, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Timothy L. Hamlet, Appellant Pro Se. Benjamin Albert Baroody,
AIKEN, BRIDGES, NUNN, ELLIOTT & TYLER, PA, Florence, South
Carolina; Robert E. Lee, MCLAIN LAW FIRM, Florence, South Carolina,
for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
Timothy L. Hamlet seeks to appeal the district court’s
order denying relief on 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 Hamlet 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, Hamlet failed to timely 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 of the consequences of noncompliance. Wright v. Collins,
766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474
U.S. 140 (1985). Hamlet has waived appellate review by failing to
timely file specific objections after receiving proper notice.
Accordingly, we affirm. 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
- 3 -