UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 99-7032
In Re: THERON JOHNNY MAXTON,
Petitioner.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Rock Hill. David C. Norton, District Judge.
(CA-99-2023-18BD, CA-99-2024-18BD, CA-99-2025-18BD, CA-99-2026-
18BD, CA-99-2027-18BD, CA-99-2028-18BD, CA-99-2029-18BD, CA-99-
2030-18BD, CA-99-2031-18BD, CA-99-2032-18BD, CA-99-2033-18BD, CA-
99-2034-18BD, CA-99-2035-18BD, CA-99-2043-18BD, CA-99-2044-18BD,
CA-99-2049-18BD, CA-99-2050-18BD, CA-99-2051-18BD, CA-99-2070-18BD,
CA-99-2072-18BD, CA-99-2077-18BD)
Submitted: November 18, 1999 Decided: November 23, 1999
Before WILKINS, HAMILTON, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Theron Johnny Maxton, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Theron Johnny Maxton appeals the district court's order dis-
missing without prejudice his twenty-one consolidated habeas corpus
and mandamus actions. Maxton'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 Maxton that
failure to file timely, specific objections to the recommendation
could waive appellate review of a district court order based upon
the recommendation. Despite this warning, Maxton lodged only a
general objection 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 that failure to lodge specific objections will waive appel-
late review. See United States v. One Parcel of Real Property,
With Bldgs., Appurtenances, Improvements, and Contents, Known as:
2121 East 30th Street, Tulsa, Oklahoma, 73 F.3d 1057, 1060 (10th
Cir. 1996); Howard v. Secretary of Health & Human Servs., 932 F.2d
505, 507-09 (6th Cir. 1991); Lockert v. Faulkner, 843 F.2d 1015,
1019 (7th Cir. 1988). See generally Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140
(1985); Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985).
Maxton has waived appellate review of his claims by failing to file
specific objections after receiving proper notice. Accordingly, we
affirm the judgment of the district court. We dispense with oral
2
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