UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-2277
LINDA ANN PUTMAN,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
WAL-MART,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Greenville. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District
Judge. (CA-02-3653-6)
Submitted: March 12, 2004 Decided: March 30, 2004
Before MICHAEL, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Linda Ann Putman, Appellant Pro Se. Jim Odell Stuckey, II, Deborah
Nye Whittle, Willie F. Bradley, Jr., NELSON MULLINS RILEY &
SCARBOROUGH, L.L.P., Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Linda Ann Putman appeals the district court’s order
dismissing her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. 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 Putman that failure to file
timely objections to this recommendation would waive appellate
review of a district court order based upon the recommendation.
Despite this warning, Putman failed to object 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). Putman has waived appellate
review by failing to file 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
- 2 -