UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-8327
ANTHONY JAMES,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
LT. JUNE, Officer of Lee Correctional Institution; LT.
HANCOCK, Officer of Lee Correctional Institution,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District
Judge. (4:08-cv-00058-HMH)
Submitted: April 23, 2009 Decided: May 1, 2009
Before MICHAEL, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Anthony James, Appellant Pro Se. Bradford Cary Andrews, Samuel
F. Arthur, III, AIKEN, BRIDGES, NUNN, ELLIOTT & TYLER, PA,
Florence, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Anthony James seeks to appeal 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) (2006). The magistrate
judge recommended that relief be denied and advised James 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, James 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. See United States v. Midgette, 478 F.3d 616,
621-22 (4th Cir. 2007); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140
(1985); Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985).
James has waived appellate review by failing to timely file
specific objections after receiving proper notice. Accordingly,
we dismiss the appeal. We deny James’s motion for appointment
of counsel.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
2
before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
DISMISSED
3