UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-6693
DAVID FARRELL SULLIVAN,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
JENNIFER W. WELLS; LORETTA RHORER; SHANE
DIEDMON; LARRY POWERS, Director; UNKNOWN
AGENTS,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Spartanburg. Henry F. Floyd, District Judge.
(CA-02-3879-7-26)
Submitted: December 13, 2004 Decided: February 9, 2005
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
David Farrell Sullivan, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
David Farrell Sullivan appeals the district court’s order
dismissing without prejudice 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 Sullivan that failure
to file timely and specific objections to this recommendation could
waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the
recommendation. Despite this warning, Sullivan failed to timely
and specifically 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). Sullivan has waived appellate
review by failing to timely file specific objections after
receiving proper notice. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of
the district court. We further affirm the district court’s orders
denying Sullivan’s motions for post-judgment relief, and deny
Sullivan’s motion for appointment of counsel.
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 -