UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-1755
JAMES A. WILLIAMS,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
MICHAEL STUDIVENT, Official Capacity; DEBORAH LANKFORD,
Individual and Official Capacity; SAMUEL LANKFORD,
Individual and Official Capacity; LANKFORD PROTECTIVE
SERVICES, Official Capacity; TOMMY STEVENS, Individual and
Official Capacity,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Thomas D. Schroeder,
District Judge. (1:09-cv-00414-TDS-LPA)
Submitted: August 13, 2012 Decided: August 17, 2012
Before GREGORY, DUNCAN, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
James A. Williams, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Studivent, BEE AND
JAY MOTORS, Greensboro, North Carolina; Sarah Helen Roane,
OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, PC, Greensboro, North
Carolina; William L. Hill, James Demarest Secor, III, FRAZIER
HILL & FURY, RLLP, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
James A. Williams 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. 2012). The
magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised
Williams 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).
Williams has waived appellate review by failing to file
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
2