UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-7689
STEVE LESTER,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
MICHAEL HENTHORNE OF LITTLER MENDELSON PC,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Columbia. Timothy M. Cain, District Judge.
(3:14-cv-03625-TMC)
Submitted: February 12, 2015 Decided: February 19, 2015
Before MOTZ, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Steve Lester, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Steve Lester appeals the district court’s order
dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint without
prejudice. * The district court referred this case to a
magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2012).
The magistrate judge recommended that the action be dismissed
and advised Lester that failure to timely file specific
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). Lester
has waived appellate review by failing to file specific
objections after receiving proper notice. Accordingly, we grant
Lester’s pending motion to amend his informal brief and affirm
the judgment of the district court.
*
We conclude that the district court’s order is final and
appealable as no amendment could cure the defect identified by
the district court. See Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers
Local Union 392, 10 F.3d 1064, 1066-67 (4th Cir. 1993).
2
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
before this court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
AFFIRMED
3