UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-1144
NATHANIEL C. RILEY, II,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
MARK BOURDON; CHARLES M. CONDON; HENRY MCMASTER; DAVID
SWACKY,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior
District Judge. (2:08-cv-03899-HMH)
Submitted: July 23, 2009 Decided: July 27, 2009
Before WILKINSON and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Nathaniel C. Riley, II, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Nathaniel C. Riley, II, 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 Riley that
failure to file specific, timely objections to this
recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court
order based upon the recommendation. Despite this warning,
Riley 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). Riley
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