UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-6636
MCDONALD WILLIAMS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
CHARLES HAWLEY; THOMAS BREEDLOVE,
Defendants - Appellees,
and
T. L. JACOBS,
Defendant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis-
trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, District Judge.
(CA-97-736-5F)
Submitted: July 13, 2000 Decided: July 25, 2000
Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
McDonald Williams, Appellant Pro Se. James Carol Worthington, POE,
HOOF & REINHARDT, Durham, North Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
McDonald Williams appeals the district court’s order granting
in part and denying in part relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West
Supp. 2000) complaint. He raised claims regarding the confiscation
of tennis shoes and money orders during a search. The district
court denied relief on Williams’ claim regarding his tennis shoes.
Our review of the record reveals that the district court’s order
was correct as to this claim. Accordingly, we affirm on this claim
on the reasoning of the district court. See Williams v. Hawley,
No. CA-97-736-SF (E.D.N.C. May 11, 1998; May 30, 2000).
Williams’ claim regarding his money orders was referred to a
magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (1994). The
magistrate judge recommended that partial relief be granted and
advised Williams 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, Wil-
liams failed to object to the magistrate judge’s recommendation.
The timely filing of objections to a magistrate’s rec-
ommendation 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. See Wright v.
Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985); see also Thomas v.
Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Williams has waived appellate review as
to this money order claim by failing to file objections after
2
receiving proper notice. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of
the district court as to this claim. We dispense with oral argu-
ment because the facts and legal contentions are adequately pre-
sented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid
the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
3