White v. Stacher , 201 F. App'x 960 ( 2006 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-1602
JAMES DAVID WHITE,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
KAREN STACHER, Doctor; EVAN VOGEL, Doctor;
NELA LAUGHRIDGE; IVAN J. TONEY, Esquire; JAMES
W. SEGURA, Esquire; KIM R. VARNER, Esquire;
MIKE SANDERS; RUTH ANN EARL; JIM AIKEN, Police
Officer No. 1; J. F. HAMLETT, Police Office
No. 2; T. T. THOMPSON, Police Officer No. 3;
M. S. HUNTINGTON, Police Officer No. 4,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Greenville. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., District
Judge. (6:05-cv-01737-GRA)
Submitted: September 28, 2006 Decided: October 4, 2006
Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
James David White, Appellant Pro Se. Kevin William Sturm,
Spartanburg, South Carolina; Marshall Winn, WYCHE, BURGESS, FREEMAN
& PARHAM, PA, Greenville, South Carolina; Charles Franklin Turner,
Jr., TURNER, PADGET, GRAHAM & LANEY, PA, Greenville, South
Carolina; Debra J. Gammons, CITY OF GREENVILLE, Greenville South
Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
James David White appeals 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 White that failure to file timely
specific objections to this recommendation could waive appellate
review of a district court order based upon the recommendation.
Despite this warning, White failed to file specific objections 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). White has waived appellate review by failing to
timely 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 before
the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
- 3 -