UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-1399
CARMELL WASHINGTON,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
MACK TRUCKS, INCORPORATED,
Defendant - Appellee,
and
UNITED AUTO WORKERS; INTERNATIONAL UNION,
UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AEROSPACE AND AGRICULTURAL;
UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AEROSPACE & AGRICULTURAL
IMPLEMENT WORKERS,
Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Columbia. Matthew J. Perry, Jr., Senior
District Judge. (CA-00-3312-10BC)
Submitted: July 29, 2004 Decided: August 3, 2004
Before LUTTIG, MICHAEL, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Carmell Washington, Appellant Pro Se. Henry Scarborough Knight,
Jr., CONSTANGY, BROOKS & SMITH, Columbia, South Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
Carmell Washington appeals from the district court's
order adopting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and
granting summary judgment in favor of Mack Truck, Inc. (“Mack”),
and its orders denying Washington’s motions to amend his complaint,
for a continuance, and to admit affidavits. Washington alleged
that his employment with Mack was terminated because of his race in
violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended,
42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e-2000e-17 (2000), and in retaliation for filing
charges of discrimination against Mack. Our review of the record
and the district court's opinions disclose that this appeal is
without merit.
We find no abuse of discretion in the district court’s
denial of Washington’s motion to amend his complaint, given that
Washington previously had filed three complaints and further
amendment would have prejudiced Mack through undue delay. See
Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962); Franks v. Ross, 313 F.3d
184, 192 (4th Cir. 2002). Nor do we find abuse of discretion in
the district court’s denial of Washington’s request to admit
affidavits into the record, considering the court previously had
granted Washington two extensions of time to file affidavits to
counter summary judgment, and his request was made after the
magistrate judge had rendered his recommendation for disposition of
the case. We likewise find no abuse of discretion in the district
- 3 -
court’s refusal to grant Washington a continuance of his case,
given the posture of the case at the time he made his request.
Washington also asserts error in the district court’s
adverse grant of summary judgment. However, Washington failed to
timely file objections to the magistrate judge’s recommendation,
despite being given notice that the failure to do so could waive
appellate review of a district court order based upon the
recommendation. See Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th
Cir. 1985); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985).
Washington has waived appellate review of the district court’s
adverse grant of summary judgment by failing to file objections
after receiving proper notice.
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s orders
denying Washington’s motions to amend his complaint, to file
affidavits, and for a continuance, and further affirm the district
court’s order granting Mack’s summary judgment motion. 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
- 4 -