Blake v. South Carolina Department of Corrections , 22 F. App'x 306 ( 2001 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-6448
ISAAC A. BLAKE,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
and
BILLY LEE LISENBY, a/k/a Malik A. Al-Shabazz;
WILLIAM LAMONT SCURRY,
Plaintiffs,
versus
SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; W.
D. CATOE, Director of South Carolina Depart-
ment of Corrections; GERALDINE MIRO, Warden of
Allendale Correctional Institution; MCKITHER
BODISON, Associate Warden of Allendale Cor-
rectional Institution; KENNETH GREENE, Ser-
geant; L. TERRY, Correctional Officer; KEN
LONG, Grievance Clerk; ANN HALLMAN, Grievance
Clerk; BETSY ALBRITTON, Captain; JOSEPH
DELOACH, Captain; E. SMITH, Correctional Of-
ficer; B. J. THOMAS, Counsel Substitute;
BENJAMIN MONTGOMERY, Deputy Director of South
Carolina Department of Corrections,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Spartanburg. David C. Norton, District Judge.
(CA-99-2281-7)
Submitted: December 20, 2001 Decided: December 27, 2001
Before LUTTIG, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Isaac A. Blake, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Douglas Simmons Mellard,
BOGOSLOW & JONES, Walterboro, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
2
PER CURIAM:
Isaac A. Blake appeals the district court’s order dismissing
his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 2001) complaint. Blake’s case
was 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 Blake 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, Blake 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 also Thomas v.
Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Blake has waived appellate review by
failing to file objections after receiving proper notice. Accord-
ingly, 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