Adrian Smith v. Warden McCall , 442 F. App'x 20 ( 2011 )


Menu:
  •                               UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 11-6443
    ADRIAN MARION SMITH,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    v.
    WARDEN JOHN MCCALL; CAPTAIN MELVIN BOSEMAN; CAPTAIN TINA
    SYPHERTT; DENNIS PATTERSON, Division of Operations; MAJOR
    MARSH,
    Defendants – Appellees,
    and
    SOUTH    CAROLINA    DEPARTMENT      OF     CORRECTIONS;     SCDS
    CLASSIFICATION BELLINGER,
    Defendants.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    South Carolina, at Columbia.     Margaret B. Seymour, District
    Judge. (3:09-cv-02786-MBS)
    Submitted:   July 28, 2011                  Decided:   August 2, 2011
    Before SHEDD, AGEE, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Adrian Marion Smith, Appellant Pro Se.      Evan Markus Gessner,
    LIDE & PAULEY, LLC, Lexington, South Carolina, for Appellees.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    2
    PER CURIAM:
    Adrian Marion Smith appeals the district court’s order
    denying relief on his 
    42 U.S.C. § 1983
     (2006) complaint.                              The
    district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant
    to 
    28 U.S.C.A. § 636
    (b)(1)(B) (West 2006 & Supp. 2011).                               The
    magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised
    Smith that failure to file timely specific objections to this
    recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court
    order based upon the 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).                          Smith
    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
    before    the    court     and   argument       would    not   aid    the    decisional
    process.
    AFFIRMED
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 11-6443

Citation Numbers: 442 F. App'x 20

Judges: Agee, Diaz, Per Curiam, Shedd

Filed Date: 8/2/2011

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/3/2023