UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-7950
HAROLD SMITH, JR.,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
PATRICIA A. VINES; PATRICIA A. BENNETT; LEE
NEWTON; UNITED STATES PAROLE COMMISSION; PAUL
A. WILLIAMS; JOHN DOE; MR. SMITH; ISRAEL
BROOKS, JR.; UNITED STATES MARSHAL'S SERVICE;
LARRY W. POWERS, Director; SALVATORE BIANCO;
SPELLER, Captain; GILBERT, Corporal; O'DELL;
WOOD, Corporal; P. MILLER; TILLS, Sergeant;
GREENE, Officer; SPARTANBURG COUNTY DETENTION
FACILITY; MICHAEL HOLMES; GRIBBS; CHEROKEE
COUNTY JAIL; LIEUTENANT PILGRIM; COLBERT,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Greenville. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., District
Judge. (CA-02-3271-6-26)
Submitted: March 29, 2004 Decided: April 28, 2004
Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Harold Smith, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Barbara Murcier Bowens,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina;
William Benson Darwin, Jr., HOLCOMBE, BOMAR, GUNN & BRADFORD, P.A.,
Spartanburg, South Carolina; Steven Albert Snyder, DONNAN, MORTON,
DAVIS & SNYDER, P.A., Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
Harold Smith, Jr., appeals the district court’s order
dismissing his 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 Smith 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, Smith failed to timely 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). Smith has waived appellate
review by failing to file timely objections after receiving proper
notice. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.
We deny Smith’s motions for appointment of counsel and to stay this
appeal.
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 -