Jenkins v. Galmour

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-7464 BOBBY JENKINS, a/k/a Ali Muqtadir, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus TRACY SMITH; J. REUBEN LONG DETENTION CENTER, Defendants - Appellees, and JAMES GALMOUR, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Patrick Michael Duffy, District Judge. (CA-00-22-3-23BC) Submitted: February 8, 2001 Decided: February 14, 2001 Before WILKINS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Bobby Jenkins, Appellant Pro Se. Alexia Pittas-Giroux, STUCKEY LAW OFFICES, P.A., Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Bobby Jenkins, a South Carolina inmate, appeals the district court’s order denying his complaint filed under 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 2000). Jenkins’ 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 Jenkins that the failure to file timely objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court based upon the recommen- dation. Despite this warning, Jenkins failed to timely 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. See Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Jenkins waived appellate review by fail- ing to timely file objections after receiving proper notice. We accordingly dismiss the appeal as frivolous. We deny the motion for preparation of transcript at government expense. 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. DISMISSED 2