UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-7342
ROBERT EARL VANCE,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
JURELL BYRD, Jail Administrator; PATSIE
JOHNSON, Jail Official; KATHY FRANKLIN,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Anderson. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge.
(CA-04-715-8-RBH)
Submitted: January 26, 2006 Decided: February 2, 2006
Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Robert Earl Vance, Appellant Pro Se. Russell W. Harter, Jr.,
CHAPMAN, HARTER & GROVES, P.A., Greenville, South Carolina, for
Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Robert Earl Vance appeals the district court’s order
granting summary judgment to Defendants in Vance’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 Vance 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, Vance does not challenge the district court’s conclusion
that his 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 Vance has waived
appellate review of both the substance of the magistrate judge’s
report and the district court’s construction of his objections.
- 2 -
Thus, we affirm the order 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 -