UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-7571
CHRISTOPHER A. ODOM,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
DUNLAP, Associate Warden; MINGO, Sergeant; LIS
ANDRELLI, Sergeant; J. BROWN, DHO; WARDEN
FAULKENBERRY, Kershaw Correctional
Institution; IGC HARDIN, SCDC Medical;
LIEUTENANT HARTWELL; CAPTAIN HUDSON; MR.
ARMSTRONG, Counsel; SERGEANT BARNES; SERGEANT
BOWERS; SERGEANT CALLOWAY; OFFICER COLLINS;
DORIS ANN COOKE; LIEUTENANT DUBOIS; LIEUTENANT
DURANT; OFFICER GORDON; MRS. HASTING; MAJOR
NEISMITH; SHARON PATTERSON; MR. SANDERS;
SERGEANT SAPP; LIEUTENANT SMITH; SERGEANT
THOMPSON; USDA; LIEUTENANT WALTZ; MRS. WEST;
D. WHITFORD; MICHELLE USHER, Nurse; SOUTH
CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS MEDICAL
FACILITY; CAPTAIN SEWARD; OFFICER TAYLOR;
OFFICER PLOW; MRS. HENSON; SERGEANT CATOE;
SERGEANT ROLLINS; JON OZMINT, Director;
KERSHAW CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, Medical
Staff; OFFICER RAY; OFFICER EDEN; SERGEANT
MURRAY; SAMANTHA GARDNER; OFFICER DAILEY;
OFFICER DAVIS; LIEUTENANT RICHARDSON; MR.
STEVENS,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Columbia. Patrick Michael Duffy, District
Judge. (3:05-cv-01611-PMD)
Submitted: December 21, 2006 Decided: January 5, 2007
Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Christopher A. Odom, Appellant Pro Se. Ruskin C. Foster, Charles
Jonathan Bridgmon, MCCUTCHEN, BLANTON, JOHNSON & BARNETTE, LLP,
Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
Christopher A. Odom appeals the district court’s order
accepting the report and recommendation of a magistrate judge and
dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint without prejudice.
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 Odom 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, Odom 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 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). Odom has waived appellate review by failing to
timely file specific 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 -