UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-1744
RAMAN K. SINGH,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
GARY HASS, a/k/a Gary Van Hass, a/k/a Gary Hollywood,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, District
Judge. (3:09-cv-00386-HEH)
Submitted: March 28, 2011 Decided: May 5, 2011
Before MOTZ, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
James E. Bowman, II, FERRISBOWMAN PLLC, Richmond, Virginia, for
Appellant. Stacie C. Bordick, HIRSCHLER FLEISCHER, P.C.,
Fredericksburg, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Gary Hass appeals the district court’s order accepting
the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying his
motion to dismiss the Appellee’s 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 the district court
subsequently adopted that recommendation. However, the timely
filing of specific objections to a magistrate judge’s
recommendation is necessary to preserve appellate review of the
substance of that recommendation. Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d
841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985); see also Wells v. Shriners Hosp.,
109 F.3d 198, 200 (4th Cir. 1997) (forfeiture rule enforced
where report fails to inform party of consequences of failure to
object if party is represented by counsel). Hass has waived
appellate review by failing to file objections to the magistrate
judge’s report. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s
order. 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