Henson v. Christian

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-6391 GEORGE HENSON, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus T. C. CHRISTIAN; R. D. PATTERSON, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior Dis- trict Judge. (CA-98-648) Submitted: May 11, 1999 Decided: May 26, 1999 Before WILKINS, HAMILTON, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. George Henson, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: George Henson, Jr., appeals the district court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 1999) case as frivolous. Henson’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 Henson 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, Henson failed to timely object to the magis- trate judge’s recommendation. The timely filing of objections to a magistrate judge’s recom- mendation is necessary to preserve appellate review of the sub- stance of that recommendation when the parties have been warned that failure to object will waive appellate review. Wright v. Col- lins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985). See generally Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Henson has waived appellate review by failing to file timely 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