UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-1045
ROSS W. ADAMS, SR.,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES FOREST SERVICE; NANCY ADAMS, Trustee for Mattie
Adams; JUDY CLARK,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Bryson City. Lacy H. Thornburg,
District Judge. (2:07-cv-00019-LHT-DLH)
Submitted: May 22, 2008 Decided: May 28, 2008
Before MOTZ and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Ross W. Adams, Sr., Appellant Pro Se. Paul Bradford Taylor, OFFICE
OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Asheville, North Carolina; James V.
Parker, Jr., PARKER LAW FIRM, PC, Hayesville, North Carolina, for
Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Ross W. Adams, Sr., 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 Adams 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, Adams 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. United States v.
Midgette, 478 F.3d 616, 621 (4th Cir. 2007); Wright v. Collins, 766
F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S.
140 (1985). Adams 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 -