Pelzer v. Social Security

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-1322 PAMELA PELZER, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus SOCIAL SECURITY DISABILITY; SOUTH CAROLINA HOUSING AUTHORITY; WORKER COMPENSATION; BANK OF AMERICA; FAMILY SERVICE; SOLOMAN SMITH BARNEY; UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE; LEGAL AID, Greenville, South Carolina; CITY HALL - POLICE DEPARTMENT; MERRILL LYNCH INVESTMENT FIRM; COLLETON COUNTY SHERIFF DEPARTMENT; US GRANT, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Sol Blatt, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CA-03-4035-2-08) Submitted: April 29, 2004 Decided: May 5, 2004 Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Pamela Pelzer, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). - 2 - PER CURIAM: Pamela Pelzer appeals from the district court’s order dismissing her civil action. 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 Pelzer that failure to timely file objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the recommendation. Despite this warning, Pelzer 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). Pelzer 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 - 3 -