UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-6032
JOHN ROOSEVELT BACCUS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
SARGEANT WILSON; LIEUTENANT STEWART; MAJOR MONTEL; SERGEANT
JONES; STAN BURTT, Warden; EMRHEIN, JR.; BLOWE; MS. JENKINS;
WILLIAMS; WALKER,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Beaufort. David C. Norton, Chief District
Judge. (9:08-cv-00326-DCN)
Submitted: June 22, 2009 Decided: June 29, 2009
Before MICHAEL, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
John Roosevelt Baccus, Appellant Pro Se. Walker Heinitsh
Willcox, WILLCOX BUYCK & WILLIAMS, PA, Florence, South Carolina,
for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
John Roosevelt Baccus appeals the district court’s
order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) 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 Baccus 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, Baccus failed to 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). Baccus
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 deny Baccus’s
motions for appointment of counsel and summary disposition.
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