UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-6206
FREDERICK BELCHER,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
LARRY POWERS, Director of Spartanburg County
Detention Facility; SPELLER, Captain at
Spartanburg County Detention Facility;
SALVATORE BIANCO, Doctor at Spartanburg County
Detention Facility,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., District
Judge. (CA-02-3714-2-20)
Submitted: June 18, 2004 Decided: July 16, 2004
Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Frederick Belcher, Appellant Pro Se. William Benson Darwin, Jr.,
David Dameron Proctor, HOLCOMBE, BOMAR, GUNN & BRADFORD, P.A.,
Spartanburg, South Carolina; Stanley Turner Case, Edward Grainger
Smith, BUTLER, MEANS, EVINS & BROWNE, Spartanburg, South Carolina,
for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Frederick Belcher 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 Belcher 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, Belcher 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). Belcher has waived appellate
review by failing to file objections after receiving proper notice.
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.
We deny Belcher’s motion to compel Appellees to respond
to discovery requests. 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 -