UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-7303
DANIEL L. STALEY,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
KERSHAW CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION; RICKY
HARRISON, Warden, in his official capacity;
LIEUTENANT SEWARD, in his individual capacity;
LIEUTENANT MILLER, in his individual capacity;
LIEUTENANT JENKINS, in his individual
capacity,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 04-7304
DANIEL L. STALEY,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
DOE SEWARD, Lieutenant in unofficial capacity;
RICKY HARRISON, Warden in official capacity;
KERSHAW CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 04-7305
DANIEL L. STALEY,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
KERSHAW CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION; LIEUTENANT
MILLER; RICKY HARRISON, Warden, in his
official capacity; LIEUTENANT JENKINS,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Beaufort. Patrick Michael Duffy, District
Judge. (CA-03-3490-9-23; CA-03-3491-9-23; CA-03-3492-9-23)
Submitted: January 27, 2005 Decided: February 2, 2005
Before LUTTIG and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Daniel L. Staley, Appellant Pro Se. Matthew Penn Engen, MCCUTCHEN,
BLANTON, JOHNSON & BARNETTE, L.L.P., Columbia, South Carolina, for
Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
Daniel L. Staley appeals from the orders of the district
court in these three actions, filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000).
The district court referred these cases to a magistrate judge
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2000). In each case the
magistrate judge recommended that the complaint be dismissed as
frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (2000), and advised
Staley that failure to file specific objections to this
recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court
order based on the recommendation. Despite this warning, in each
case Staley failed to file specific objections 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). Staley
has waived appellate review by failing to file specific 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 -