UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-6080
SAMUEL MCARTHUR WALLACE,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
GREENVILLE COUNTY DETENTION CENTER; MAJOR
MELTON; JAMES M. DORRIETY, Administrator; DR.
SHERMAN; DR. LANTZ; DR. MARTIN, Doctor of
Mental Health; CRIST MCGRAW, Head Nurse at
Greenville County Detention Center,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Columbia. David C. Norton, District Judge.
(CA-03-3633-3)
Submitted: April 14, 2005 Decided: April 21, 2005
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Samuel McArthur Wallace, Appellant Pro Se. Russell W. Harter, Jr.,
CHAPMAN, HARTER & GROVES, PA, Greenville, South Carolina; Edwin
Brown Parkinson, Jr., Christopher R. Antley, DEVLIN & PARKINSON,
PA, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
Samuel McArthur Wallace appeals the district court’s
order dismissing 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 Wallace 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, Wallace failed to 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). Wallace has waived appellate
review by failing to file 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 -