Brown v. Dunbar

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-6723 VERNON SAMUEL BROWN, a/k/a Vernon S. Brown, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. CORRECTIONAL OFFICER DANNY DUNBAR; SGT. ANGLA COLLINS, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Beaufort. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge. (9:09-cv-00920-RBH-BM) Submitted: December 22, 2010 Decided: January 12, 2011 Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Vernon Samuel Brown, Appellant Pro Se. Marshall Hodges Waldron, Jr., GRIFFITH & SADLER, P.A., Beaufort, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Vernon Samuel Brown 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.A. § 636(b)(1)(B) (West 2006 & Supp. 2010). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Brown that failure to file timely objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the 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). Brown has waived appellate review by failing to file objections after receiving proper notice. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. We deny as moot appellees’ motion to dismiss the appeal. 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