UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-6635
BETTY J. MURPHY,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
INMATE SYSTEMS; D. S. CALLISON; KATHLEEN HAWK
SAWYER, Federal Bureau of Prison Agency for
Department of Justice; UNIT MANAGER LUCZYCKI;
MAIL OFFICER HUMPHRIES; NURSE ELMORE;
O’SULLIVAN, Teacher; DAVID MORROW,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia, at Bluefield. David A. Faber, Chief
District Judge. (CA-03-170-1)
Submitted: July 29, 2004 Decided: August 5, 2004
Before LUTTIG, MICHAEL, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed in part, dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam
opinion.
Betty J. Murphy, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Betty J. Murphy appeals from the district court’s order
denying her motions for a protective order and to compel discovery
in her Bivens* action, which is still pending in the district
court. We affirm in part and dismiss in part.
The magistrate judge construed Murphy’s motion for a
protective order as a motion for a preliminary injunction and
recommended denying the motion. The magistrate judge advised
Murphy 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, Murphy
failed to object to the magistrate judge’s recommendation
concerning the motion for a preliminary injunction.
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). Murphy has waived appellate
review of this portion of the district court’s order by failing to
file objections after receiving proper notice. Accordingly, we
*
Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of
Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971).
- 2 -
affirm the district court’s denial of Murphy’s motion for a
preliminary injunction.
To the extent that Murphy appeals from the denial of her
motion to compel discovery, we dismiss the appeal for lack of
jurisdiction. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final
orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2000), and certain interlocutory and
collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2000); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b);
Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949). The
district court’s denial of the discovery motion is neither a final
order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order.
Accordingly, we dismiss this portion of the appeal for lack of
jurisdiction.
Additionally, we deny Murphy’s motions to remand the case
and for a protective order. 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 IN PART;
DISMISSED IN PART
- 3 -