UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-7450
KAIZEL MOSLEY,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
G. MCLEOD; M. COLEMAN; R. CASSIDY,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Columbia. Patrick Michael Duffy, District Judge.
(CA-00-1183-3)
Submitted: November 29, 2001 Decided: December 10, 2001
Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Kaizel Mosley, Appellant Pro Se. Andrew Foster McLeod, HARRIS &
MCLEOD, Cheraw, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Kaizel Mosley appeals the district court’s order dismissing
his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 2001) complaint. Mosley’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 Mosley 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,
Mosley 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. See Wright v.
Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985); see also Thomas v.
Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Mosley has waived appellate review by
failing to file timely objections after receiving proper notice.
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. 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
2