UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-7634
ELRIDGE VANDERHORST HILLS, a/k/a Elridge V.
Hills,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
NFN FARR, Lieutenant at Tyger River
Correctional Institution; JAMES BATES,
Lieutenant at Tyger River Correctional
Institution; LAUGHTER, Lieutenant at Tyger
River Correctional Institution; JOSEPH SMITH,
Sergeant at Tyger River Correctional
Institution; NFN AMMONS, Correctional Officer
at Tyger River Correctional Institution;
MICHAEL FOWLER, Inmate Grievance Coordinator
at Tyger River Correctional Institution;
GOOCH, Captain at Tyger River Correctional
Institution; NFN COATES, Sergeant at Tyger
River Correctional Institution; CORRECTIONAL
OFFICER LINGERFELT, Tyger River Correctional
Institution; RICHARD SMITH, Warden of Tyger
River Correctional Institution; LOYD,
Associate Warden of Tyger River Correctional
Institution; DONALD DEASE, Former Regional
Director of Division 2,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., Chief
District Judge. (4:05-cv-00690-JFA)
Submitted: January 29, 2007 Decided: February 15, 2007
Before WILKINSON, WILLIAMS, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Elridge Vanderhorst Hills, Appellant Pro Se. Roy F. Laney, Nikole
Deanna Haltiwanger, Thomas Lowndes Pope, RILEY POPE & LANEY, LLC,
Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
Elridge V. Hills appeals the district court’s order
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 and advised Hills 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, Hills failed to timely 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). Hills 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 -