Delano Antonio Middleton v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 1971 . PER…

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-7974
DELANO ANTONIO MIDDLETON,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
DOCTOR PARINA, Senior Physician, FCI Estill,
SC; VENANTUS ENEJE, Physicians Assistant, FCI
Estill SC,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Henry F. Floyd, District Judge.
(CA-04-617-0-26)
Submitted: March 24, 2005 Decided: March 30, 2005
Before WIDENER and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Delano Antonio Middleton, Appellant Pro Se. Barbara Murcier
Bowens, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South
Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).

-- 1 of 3 --

*Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Federal Bureau of
Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971).
PER CURIAM:
Delano Antonio Middleton appeals the district court’s
order accepting and adopting the recommendation of the magistrate
judge; summarily dismissing his Bivens * action based on deliberate
indifference to his serious medical needs; and dismissing without
prejudice his claims for medical malpractice and medical negligence
for failure to comply with the prerequisites for pursuing these
claims under the Federal Tort Claims Act. The district court
referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1)(B) (2000). The magistrate judge recommended that
relief be denied and advised Middleton that failure to timely file
objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review of
a district court order based upon the recommendation. Despite this
warning, Middleton failed to object to the magistrate judge’s
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 that failure to object will waive appellate review. See
Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985); see also
Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Middleton has waived appellate
review by failing to file objections after receiving proper notice.
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.

-- 2 of 3 --

- 3 -
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

-- 3 of 3 --