UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-6387
DAMIAN JACKSON,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
JAMES L. JENKINS, Chairman,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, District Judge.
(CA-01-252)
Submitted: June 13, 2002 Decided: June 18, 2002
Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Damian Jackson, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Damian Jackson appeals the district court’s order dismissing
without prejudice his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 2001)
complaint. Jackson’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 Jackson that failure
to file timely and specific objections to this recommendation could
waive appellate review of a district court’s order based on the
recommendation. Despite this warning, Jackson failed to file any
objections to the magistrate judge’s recommendation.
The timely filing of objections to the 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. Fed. R. Civ.
P. 72(b); Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-47 (4th Cir. 1985);
see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 155 (1985). Failure to file
timely specific objections shall constitute a waiver of a party’s
appellate review if the recommendation is accepted by a district
judge. United States v. Schronce, 727 F.2d 91, 94 & n.4 (4th Cir.
1985). Jackson has waived appellate review by failing to file any
objections to the magistrate judge’s recommendation after receiving
proper notice. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district
court. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
2
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
3