UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-7711
M. RODNEY JONES, a/k/a Rodney E. Jones,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
FNU ADAMS, Mailroom Supervisor; DEBRA
BARNWELL, Internal Affairs Director,
Defendants - Appellees,
and
R. DANIELS, Sergeant; S. KARPA, Corrections
Officer; JAMIE L. DICKINSON, Corrections
Officer,
Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Columbia. Margaret B. Seymour, District Judge.
(CA-02-557-3-24)
Submitted: March 6, 2003 Decided: March 18, 2003
Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
M. Rodney Jones, Appellant Pro Se. Robert E. Lee, AIKEN BRIDGES,
Florence, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
2
PER CURIAM:
M. Rodney Jones appeals the district court’s order dismissing
his complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (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 Jones 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,
Jones failed to direct his objections to the district court in a
timely manner.
The timely filing of specific objections to a magistrate
judge’s recommendation in the district court 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). Jones has
waived appellate review by failing to timely file objections after
receiving proper notice. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of
the district court.
*
The magistrate judge also advised Jones that the objections
were to be directed to the district court. Based on Jones’
numerous filings before that court, we are satisfied that Jones was
well familiar with the address for the clerk’s office. Moreover,
Jones does not challenge on appeal the district court’s finding
that his untimely objections were erroneously served on this court,
and were not served on the district court. Thus, he has waived
review of this finding. 4th Cir. R. 34(b).
3
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
4