Larry S. Poinsett v. Martin Gorski Larry Troxel C.O.A.S. Pratt William Cato, Defendants, 862 F.2d 870, 4th Cir. (1988)
Uploaded by
Scribd Government DocsLarry S. Poinsett v. Martin Gorski Larry Troxel C.O.A.S. Pratt William Cato, Defendants, 862 F.2d 870, 4th Cir. (1988)
Uploaded by
Scribd Government Docs862 F.
2d 870
Unpublished Disposition
NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of
unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing
res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires
service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth
Circuit.
Larry S. POINSETT, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Martin GORSKI; Larry Troxel; C.O.A.S. Pratt; William
Cato, Defendants- Appellees.
No. 88-7231.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Sept. 30, 1988.
Decided: Nov. 23, 1988.
Larry S. Poinsett, appellant pro se.
Before DONALD RUSSELL, WIDENER and JAMES DICKSON
PHILLIPS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Larry S. Poinsett appeals the district court's order dismissing this 42 U.S.C.
Sec. 1983 action. Appellant's action was referred to a magistrate pursuant to 28
U.S.C. Sec. 636(b)(1)(B). The magistrate recommended that relief be denied
and advised appellant that the failure to file timely objections to this
recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order based
upon the recommendation. Despite this warning, appellant failed to object to
the magistrate's recommendation within the prescribed time period.
This Court has held that the timely filing of objections to a magistrate's
recommendation is necessary to preserve appellate review of the substance of
that recommendation where the parties have been warned that failure to object
will waive appellate review. Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841 (4th Cir.1985);
United States v. Schronce, 727 F.2d 91 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 467 U.S. 1208
(1984). See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Appellant has waived
appellate review by failing to file timely objections after receiving proper
notice. We accordingly affirm the judgment of the district court. We dispense
with oral argument because the facts and legal arguments are adequately
presented in the materials before the Court and oral argument would not
significantly aid the decisional process.
3
AFFIRMED.
