Theron Johnny Maxton v. Richard Bundrick, Grievance Coordinator James Savage, Social Worker, Msu Correctional Officer Mattox, Officer, Msu, 74 F.3d 1232, 4th Cir. (1996)
Uploaded by
Scribd Government DocsTheron Johnny Maxton v. Richard Bundrick, Grievance Coordinator James Savage, Social Worker, Msu Correctional Officer Mattox, Officer, Msu, 74 F.3d 1232, 4th Cir. (1996)
Uploaded by
Scribd Government Docs74 F.
3d 1232
NOTICE: Fourth Circuit Local Rule 36(c) states that citation of unpublished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of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the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.
Theron Johnny MAXTON, Plaintiff--Appellant,
v.
Richard BUNDRICK, Grievance Coordinator; James Savage,
Social Worker, MSU; Correctional Officer Mattox,
Officer, MSU, Defendants--Appellees.
No. 95-6967.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Jan. 11, 1996.
Decided Jan. 23, 1996.
Theron Johnny Maxton, Appellant Pro Se.
Sandra J. Senn, STUCKEY & KOBROVSKY, Charleston, South
Carolina, for Appellees.
Before RUSSELL, HALL, and WILKINSON, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
PER CURIAM
Appellant appeals the district court's order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983
(1988) complaint. Appellant's case was referred to a magistrate judge pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 636(b)(1)(B) (1988). The magistrate judge recommended that
relief be denied and advised Appellant 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, Appellant 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. Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir.1985). See generally
Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Appellant has waived appellate review by
failing to file 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
