Doretha C. Taylor v. Luke Gainey

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-6940
DORETHA C. TAYLOR,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
LUKE GAINEY; MR. MILLER,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District
Judge. (0:05-cv-01850-HMH)
Submitted: September 28, 2006 Decided: October 10, 2006
Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Doretha C. Taylor, Appellant Pro se. Tommy Evans, Jr., SOUTH
CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF PROBATION, PAROLE & PARDON SERVICE,
Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).

-- 1 of 2 --

- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
Doretha C. Taylor appeals the district court’s order
denying relief on her 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 Taylor 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, Taylor 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 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). Taylor has waived appellate review by failing to
timely 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

-- 2 of 2 --