UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-6384
BOBBY J. OLDHAM,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
THEODIS BECK; BOYD BENNETT; MICHAEL W. YORK;
JOSEPH G. PICKELSIMER; NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION; DENNIS M. ROWLAND,
Special Assistant to the Director of Prisons;
JENNIFER H. LANGLEY, Assistant Superintendent
for Custody and Operations at Albemarle
Correctional Institution; JOHN DAVIS, Unit
Manager at Albemarle; MR. COOK, Programmer at
Albemarle; CAPTAIN STRICKLAND; TODD W. PINION,
Assistant Superintendent,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Durham. William L. Osteen, District
Judge. (CA-02-379-1)
Submitted: July 29, 2005 Decided: August 17, 2005
Before LUTTIG, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Bobby J. Oldham, Appellant Pro Se. John Payne Scherer, II,
Assistant Attorney General; James Philip Allen, NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Bobby J. Oldham appeals the district court’s order
accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying
relief on 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. The timely filing of specific objections to
a magistrate judge’s recommendation is necessary to preserve
appellate review of the substance of that recommendation. See
Wells v. Shriners Hosp., 109 F.3d 198, 201 (4th Cir. 1997);
Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985); see also
Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985).
Oldham has waived appellate review of the magistrate
judge’s conclusion regarding the objective component of the test to
establish an Eighth Amendment conditions of confinement claim based
upon exposure to environmental tobacco smoke by failing to
specifically object. See Helling v. McKinney, 509 U.S. 25, 35-36
(1993) (discussing Eighth Amendment standard); Odom v. S.C. Dep’t
of Corr., 349 F.3d 765, 770 (4th Cir. 2003) (same). 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
- 2 -