UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-7029
KENNETH TURNER,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
CRAVEN COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OFFICE, Sheriff,
Jail Medical Personnel; DURHAM COUNTY JAIL,
medical personnel, Sheriff; GUILFORD COUNTY
JAIL, medical personnel, Sheriff; LARRY
UNKNOWN, Craven County Jail, medical
personnel; BARBARA UNKNOWN, Craven County
Jail, medical personnel; TRISH CALLISON, RN,
Defendants - Appellees,
and
RUTH DAVIS; SUSAN AGUIRRE; D. PICKETT, RN,
Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Senior
District Judge. (CA-01-572-5-F)
Submitted: January 15, 2004 Decided: January 27, 2004
Before WIDENER and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Kenneth Turner, Appellant Pro Se. Scott Christopher Hart, SUMRELL,
SUGG, CARMICHAEL, HICKS & HART, PA, New Bern, North Carolina;
Steven Price Weaver, Richard David Yeoman, TUGGLE, DUGGINS &
MESCHAN, PA, Greensboro, North Carolina; Curtis Oscar Massey, II,
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
Kenneth Turner appeals the district court’s order
dismissing his claims filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against various
local entities and individuals for deliberate indifference to
medical needs. The district court referred this case to a
magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B)(2000). The
magistrate judge issued a report and recommendation (“MRR”) in
which he recommended dismissing the claims against all but three
individual defendants so that service of process could be
perfected. The district court adopted the MRR to the extent that
it recommended dismissing Turner’s claims. The district court
further ordered that Turner’s claims against the remaining three
defendants be dismissed.
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). We conclude Turner has waived
appellate review of the MRR’s recommendation to dismiss because he
did not file specific objections to this recommendation after
receiving proper notice.
With regard to the district court’s dismissal of the claims
against the three remaining individual defendants, we have reviewed
- 3 -
the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm
for the reasons stated by the district court. See Turner v. Craven
County Comm’rs Office, No. CA-01-572-5-F (E.D.N.C. Apr. 28, 2003).
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 -