Dorian Haddock v. Tribute Properties

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-1549
DORIAN HADDOCK,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
TRIBUTE PROPERTIES,
Defendant – Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at New Bern. Louise W. Flanagan,
Chief District Judge. (4:09-cv-00080-FL)
Submitted: July 27, 2010 Decided: August 5, 2010
Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and WILKINSON and KEENAN, Circuit
Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Dorian Haddock, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Murchison, MURCHISON,
TAYLOR & GIBSON, PLLC, Wilmington, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Dorian Haddock appeals the district court’s order
accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and
granting defendant’s motion to dismiss. The district court
referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A.
§ 636(b)(1) (West 2006 & Supp. 2010). The magistrate judge
recommended that relief be denied and advised Haddock that
failure to file timely objections to this recommendation could
waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the
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).
Haddock has waived appellate review by failing to 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 --