UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-6631
WILLIE J. HARRISON,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
JIM HODGES, Governor of South Carolina; DOUG
CATOE, Director; RICKIE HARRISON, Warden of
Kershaw Correctional Institution et al con-
cerned parties,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Greenville. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., District
Judge. (CA-99-2168)
Submitted: July 27, 2000 Decided: August 4, 2000
Before MURNAGHAN, WILKINS, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Willie J. Harrison, Appellant Pro Se. Terry B. Millar, Rock Hill,
South Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Willie J. Harrison appeals from the district court’s order
granting summary judgment for Defendants in his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983
(West Supp. 2000) action. Harrison’s case was referred to a mag-
istrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (1994). The
magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised
Harrison that failure to file timely objections to the
recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court
order based upon the recommendation. Despite this warning,
Harrison failed to object to the magistrate judge’s recommendation
to deny relief on his claim of sub-standard water. Harrison has
waived appellate review of this issue by failing to file objections
after receiving proper notice. See Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d
841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985).
Harrison also challenges the district court’s order denying
relief on his claims of an interference with access to medical
services and the denial of his discovery motions. We have reviewed
the record and the district court’s opinion accepting the recom-
mendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible error.
Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See
Harrison v. Hodges, No. CA-99-2168 (D.S.C. Apr. 20, 2000). We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions
2
are adequately presented in the materials before the court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
3