UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-7806
WILLIAM M. BRYSON, JR.,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
and
LEEMAC, INCORPORATED; AMBER, INCORPORATED;
BRYSON ACCOUNTING COMPANY, INCORPORATED; EJ &
WM, INCORPORATED; LAW OFFICES OF KENYON &
LUSK; TAX LIEN ACQUISITIONS, INCORPORATED,
Plaintiffs,
versus
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Greenville. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District
Judge. (CA-02-2883-6-20AK)
Submitted: February 20, 2003 Decided: February 27, 2003
Before LUTTIG, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
William M. Bryson, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
2
PER CURIAM:
William Bryson appeals from the district court’s order
accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying
relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000). The
district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2000). The magistrate judge recommended
that relief be denied and advised Bryson that failure to file
timely, specific objections to this recommendation could waive
appellate review of a district court order based upon the
recommendation. Despite this warning, Bryson failed to file
specific objections to the magistrate judge’s recommendation.
The timely filing of specific 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). Bryson has waived appellate
review by failing to file specific objections after receiving
proper notice. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district
court. 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.
AFFIRMED
3