UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-7221
DARRELL DEVON HUNTER,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
R. C. TURNER, DHO; SERGEANT HORN; OFFICER
GLENN; TIM RILEY, Warden; BROCK; OFFICER
GRANT, IGC; HERB JOHNS; OFFICER RICE; OFFICER
BISHOP; W. CALHOUN, Sergeant; SERGEANT
JOHNSON; OFFICER CAMPBELL; SERGEANT DAVIS;
OFFICER GOSSETT; CAPTAIN ALEXANDER; DAVID
CAMPBELL, Officer, B1 Shift; K. DAVIS,
Sergeant, B2 night shift,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District
Judge. (0:06-cv-03406)
Submitted: January 17, 2008 Decided: January 24, 2008
Before TRAXLER, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Darrell Devon Hunter, Appellant Pro Se. John Evans James, III, LEE,
ERTER, WILSON, JAMES, HOLLER & SMITH, Sumter, South Carolina, for
Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Darrell Devon Hunter 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 Hunter that failure to file
timely specific objections to this recommendation could waive
appellate review of a district court order based upon the
recommendation. Despite this warning, Hunter failed to file
specific 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). Hunter 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
- 2 -