UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-7898
THOMAS EARL GREENE,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
GREENVILLE COUNTY DETENTION CENTER MEDICAL
DEPARTMENT,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Greenville. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., Chief
District Judge. (CA-04-22330-6-13AK)
Submitted: February 24, 2005 Decided: March 9, 2005
Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Thomas Earl Greene, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Thomas Earl Greene appeals the district court’s order
accepting and adopting the recommendation of the magistrate judge
and dismissing without prejudice his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000)
complaint for failure to state a claim and failure to exhaust
administrative remedies. 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
Greene that failure to timely file specific, written objections to
this recommendation could waive appellate review of a district
court order based upon the recommendation. Despite this warning,
Greene failed to file specific objections to the magistrate judge’s
recommendation. Greene’s filed objections were entirely general
and conclusory.
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). Greene has waived appellate
review by failing to file objections with any specificity 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
- 2 -
materials before the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
AFFIRMED
- 3 -