UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 99-6126
KEVIN SMITH,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
BOBBY RUTHERFORD; TERRELL CANNON, SR.; WAYNE
RICHARDSON; J. D. WESSINGER,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Patrick Michael Duffy, District
Judge. (CA-97-1201-23BD)
Submitted: April 15, 1999 Decided: April 21, 1999
Before NIEMEYER and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Kevin Smith, Appellant Pro Se. Andrew Frederick Lindemann, DAVID-
SON, MORRISON & LINDEMANN, P.A., Columbia, South Carolina, for
Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Kevin Smith appeals the district court’s order dismissing his
42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 1998) complaint. Appellant’s case
was referred to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1)(B) (1994). The magistrate judge recommended that relief
be denied and advised Smith that failure to file timely objections
to this recommendation could waive appellate review of a district
court order based upon the recommendation. Despite this warning,
Smith failed to object to the magistrate judge’s recommendation.
The timely filing of 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
that failure to object will waive appellate review. See Wright v.
Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985); see generally Thomas
v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Smith has waived appellate review by
failing to file objections after receiving proper notice. Insofar
as Smith appeals from the order denying his motion for a stay of
proceedings, we find that the court did not abuse its discretion.
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. We dis-
pense 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