UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-1479
CHERYL A. DAVIDSON,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
JAMES TAYLOR; JOHN O’DONALD; DARRELL BETSILL,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Spartanburg. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District
Judge. (CA-04-2013-7-HMH)
Submitted: September 27, 2005 Decided: September 29, 2005
Before LUTTIG, MOTZ, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Cheryl A. Davidson, Appellant Pro Se. Vance J. Bettis, GIGNILLIAT,
SAVITZ & BETTIS, Columbia, South Carolina; Michael Stephen Pauley,
VINTON D. LIDE & ASSOCIATES, Lexington, South Carolina, for
Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Cheryl A. Davidson appeals the district court’s order
granting summary judgment to Defendants in Davidson’s 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 (2000) suit. The district court referred this case to a
magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2000). The
magistrate judge issued a report and recommendation in which he
recommended granting summary judgment to Defendants. The district
court adopted the report and recommendation, finding that Davidson
failed to file specific objections.
The timely filing of specific objections to a magistrate
judge’s report and 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). On
appeal, Davidson does not challenge the district court’s conclusion
that her objections were merely general. See 4th Cir. R. 34 (b)
(failure to raise claim in informal brief waives consideration of
that claim). Accordingly, we conclude that Davidson has waived
appellate review of both the substance of the magistrate judge’s
report and the district court’s construction of her objections.
Thus, we affirm the order of the district court. We
dispense with oral argument, because the facts and legal
- 2 -
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
- 3 -