UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-6308
JERRY JACKSON,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
J. V. SMITH, Warden; J. SERRANO, MD; L.
ROGERS, I.C.C.I.D.P.; K. WALKER, PA; A. SAHA,
PA; H. WATTS, Board of Appeals; JOHN L.
LAMANNA, Warden; LOUISA FUERTES-ROSARIO; FNU
SERO,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Greenville. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., District
Judge. (6:04-cv-02190-GRA)
Submitted: November 27, 2006 Decided: December 7, 2006
Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jerry Jackson, Appellant Pro Se. Barbara Murcier Bowens, OFFICE OF
THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for
Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Jerry Jackson appeals the district court’s order denying
relief on his complaint filed pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown
Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). 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 Jackson 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, Jackson failed to file timely objections 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 of the consequences of noncompliance. Wright v. Collins,
766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474
U.S. 140 (1985). Jackson has waived appellate review by failing to
timely file specific objections after receiving proper notice.
Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal.
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.
DISMISSED
- 2 -