UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-1562
PREFAB, INCORPORATED; JAMES M. MILLEAGE;
EDWARD D. SNAVELY,
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
and
BONNIE I. MILLEAGE,
Third Party Defendant - Appellant,
versus
BRANCH BANKING & TRUST, INCORPORATED; ASSO-
CIATED MACHINE TOOLS; GERALD O’REILLY; JOHN
DEMPSEY, JR.; WILLIAM NEWBOLD,
Defendants - Appellees,
and
HOME FEDERAL SAVINGS BANK OF SOUTH CAROLINA,
Third Party Defendant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Dennis W. Shedd, District Judge.
(CA-97-2875-0-19)
Submitted: March 30, 2001 Decided: June 7, 2001
Before WIDENER, WILLIAMS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Stephen D. Schusterman, SCHUSTERMAN LAW FIRM, P.A., Rock Hill,
South Carolina, for Appellants. Constance L. Young, Thomas L.
Ogburn, III, POYNER & SPRUILL, L.L.P., Charlotte, North Carolina;
James W. Bradford, Jr., BRADFORD & BRADFORD, P.A., York, South
Carolina; Susan B. Lipscomb, NEXSEN, PRUET, JACOBS & POLLARD,
Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
2
PER CURIAM:
Prefab, Inc., James Milleage, Edward Snavely, and Bonnie
Milleage (the “Appellants”) appeal from the district court’s order
dismissing their complaint for failure to obey discovery orders
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b). The Appellants’ case was re-
ferred to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 636(b)(1)(B)
(West 1993 and Supp. 2000 ). The magistrate judge recommended that
the complaint be dismissed based on the Appellants’ repeated
failure to comply with discovery orders and advised the Appellants
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, the Appellants failed to
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. Wright v.
Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985); see Thomas v. Arn,
474 U.S. 140, 155 (1985) (holding “that a court of appeals may
adopt a rule conditioning appeal, when taken from a district court
judgment that adopts a magistrate’s recommendation, upon the filing
of objections with the district court identifying those issues on
which further review is desired”). The Appellants have waived
appellate review by failing to file objections after receiving
3
proper notice. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district
court. The motion to file a Rule 60(b) motion is denied. We dis-
pense 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
4