UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-7617
MACK NEIL MYERS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
JON OZMINT, Director of SCDC; RICHARD BAZZEL, Warden; OLSON,
Food Service Director; RAVIST, Nurse,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Beaufort. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District
Judge. (9:07-cv-01131-HMH)
Submitted: March 27, 2008 Decided: April 2, 2008
Before TRAXLER and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Mack Neil Myers, Appellant Pro Se. Russell W. Harter, Jr.,
CHAPMAN, HARTER & GROVES, PA, Greenville, South Carolina, for
Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Mack Neil Myers 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 Myers that failure to file
timely, specific objections to this recommendation would waive
appellate review of a district court order based upon the
recommendation. Despite this warning, Myers’ objections, though
timely filed, did not specifically identify Myers’ bases for
objecting to the dispositive portions of 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. United States v.
Midgette, 478 F.3d 616, 621-22 (4th Cir. 2007); see also Thomas v.
Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Myers has waived appellate review by
failing to file specific objections after receiving proper notice.
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.
Further, we deny Myers’ motion for appointment of counsel.
- 2 -
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 -