UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-1798
NATHANIEL COOPER,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
THE DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Robert J. Conrad,
Jr., Chief District Judge. (3:08-cv-00394-RJC-DSC)
Submitted: October 15, 2009 Decided: October 19, 2009
Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Nathaniel Cooper, Appellant Pro Se. Sidney P. Alexander,
Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Nathaniel Cooper appeals the district court’s order
denying relief on his 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 Cooper 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, Cooper failed to make 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). “[A]
party . . . waives a right to appellate review of particular
issues by failing to file timely objections specifically
directed to those issues.” United States v. Midgette, 478 F.3d
616, 621 (4th Cir. 2007). Cooper has waived appellate review by
failing to timely file specific objections after receiving
proper notice. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the
district court.
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