Woods v. Angelone

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-7484 HORACE T. WOODS, III, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus RONALD J. ANGELONE; JOHN B. METZGER, III, Chairman, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior District Judge. (CA-97-178-3) Submitted: January 22, 1998 Decided: February 4, 1998 Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Horace T. Woods, III, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) complaint. The district court referred Appellant's complaint to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (1994), and after considering the allegations raised in the complaint, the magistrate judge recommended dismissal. Appellant received notice that he had twenty days in which to file objections to the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation and that failure to object would waive appellate review. However, Appellant failed to file timely objections in the district court. Thus, the district court, after reviewing the magistrate judge's report and recommendation, adopted the magistrate judge's report and recommendation and dismissed the case. Appellant appeals. The filing of timely objections to a magistrate judge's report and recommendation is necessary to preserve appellate review of the substance of the report. See United States v. Schronce, 727 F.2d 91, 94 (4th Cir. 1984). Because Appellant failed to file objections after receiving notification of the need to file such objections, he waived his right to appellate review. 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