Richard Douglas Murray, Sr v. EDWARD J. RUDLOFF, Administrator, Eastern Regional Jail

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-7637
RICHARD DOUGLAS MURRAY, SR.,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
EDWARD J. RUDLOFF, Administrator, Eastern
Regional Jail; JAMES RUBENSTEIN, Commissioner,
Department of Corrections; BARBRA WHITE,
Nursing Director Prime Care Medical; GLEN
STOTLER, President, Morgan County Commission,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. W. Craig Broadwater,
District Judge. (CA-04-103-3)
Submitted: March 23, 2006 Decided: March 29, 2006
Before WILKINSON, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Richard Douglas Murray, Sr., Appellant Pro Se. Tracey Brown
Eberling, STEPTOE & JOHNSON, Martinsburg, West Virginia; Charles
Patrick Houdyschell, Jr., WEST VIRGINIA DIVISION OF CORRECTIONS,
Charleston, West Virginia; Mark William Browning, SHUMAN, MCCLUSKEY
& SLICER, PLLC, Charleston, West Virginia; Michael Douglas
Lorensen, BOWLES, RICE, MCDAVID, GRAFF & LOVE, PLLC, Martinsburg,

-- 1 of 3 --

- 2 -
West Virginia; Debra MH McLaughlin, Berkeley, West Virginia, for
Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).

-- 2 of 3 --

- 3 -
PER CURIAM:
Richard Douglas Murray, Sr., appeals the district court’s
order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. 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 Murray that failure to timely
file specific objections to this recommendation could waive
appellate review of a district court order based upon the
recommendation. Despite this warning, Murray failed to file
specific objections 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 specifically object will waive appellate
review. See Page v. Lee, 337 F.3d 411, 416 n.3 (4th Cir. 2003);
see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); Wright v. Collins, 766
F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985). Murray has waived appellate
review by failing to file specific objections after receiving
proper notice. Accordingly, we deny Murray’s motion for
appointment of counsel and 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

-- 3 of 3 --