Brooks v. Padulah

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-7196

ROBERT D. BROOKS,

Plaintiff – Appellant,

PADULAH, Warden of Lee CI all are sued in their individual
and official capacity respectively; D. WHITNEY, Mailroom
Worker, all are sued in their individual and official
capacity respectively; OBERMAN, ASU Manager all are sued in
their individual and official capacity respectively; L.
MILLER, Grievance Coordinator all are sued in their
individual and official capacity respectively; R. JOHNSON,
Captain of Contraband all are sued in their individual and
official capacity respectively; OFFICER SIMON, Contraband
Officer all are sued in their individual and official
capacity respectively; UBOLA, dentist all are sued in their
individual and official capacity respectively; MCCLARY,
dentist assistant all are sued in their individual and
official capacity respectively; LIEUTENANT DAVIS, of ASU
all are sued in their individual and official capacity; W.
SERMONS, LPN of Lee CI all are sued in their individual and
official capacity respectively,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Greenville. Margaret B. Seymour, District
Judge. (6:09-cv-00992-MBS)

Submitted: January 13, 2011 Decided: January 19, 2011

Before MOTZ, KING, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Robert D. Brooks, Appellant Pro Se. Samuel F. Arthur, III,
AIKEN, BRIDGES, NUNN, ELLIOTT & TYLER, PA, Florence, South
Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2
PER CURIAM:

Robert D. Brooks 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. 2010). The

magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised

Brooks 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). Brooks

has waived appellate review by failing to file specific

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