UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-7196
ROBERT D. BROOKS,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
PADULAH, Warden of Lee CI all are sued in their individual
and official capacity respectively; D. WHITNEY, Mailroom
Worker, all are sued in their individual and official
capacity respectively; OBERMAN, ASU Manager all are sued in
their individual and official capacity respectively; L.
MILLER, Grievance Coordinator all are sued in their
individual and official capacity respectively; R. JOHNSON,
Captain of Contraband all are sued in their individual and
official capacity respectively; OFFICER SIMON, Contraband
Officer all are sued in their individual and official
capacity respectively; UBOLA, dentist all are sued in their
individual and official capacity respectively; MCCLARY,
dentist assistant all are sued in their individual and
official capacity respectively; LIEUTENANT DAVIS, of ASU
all are sued in their individual and official capacity; W.
SERMONS, LPN of Lee CI all are sued in their individual and
official capacity respectively,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Greenville. Margaret B. Seymour, District
Judge. (6:09-cv-00992-MBS)
Submitted: January 13, 2011 Decided: January 19, 2011
Before MOTZ, KING, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Robert D. Brooks, Appellant Pro Se. Samuel F. Arthur, III,
AIKEN, BRIDGES, NUNN, ELLIOTT & TYLER, PA, Florence, South
Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
Robert D. Brooks 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
Brooks 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). Brooks
has waived appellate review by failing to 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
3