Steven Lester v. Perry Correctional Institution; Officer Fish; Officer Alwren; Cpt Randal

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-7027
STEVEN LESTER,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
PERRY CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION; OFFICER FISH; OFFICER
ALWREN; CPT RANDAL,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence. Timothy M. Cain, District Judge.
(4:12-cv-00971-TMC)
Submitted: September 27, 2012 Decided: October 2, 2012
Before MOTZ, DAVIS, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Steven Lester, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Steven Lester appeals the district court’s order
denying relief without prejudice on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006)
complaint. The district court referred this case to a
magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 636(b)(1)(B) (West
2006 & Supp. 2012). The magistrate judge recommended that
relief be denied and advised Lester that failure to file
specific objections to this recommendation could waive appellate
review of a district court order based upon the recommendation.
The district court adopted 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). Lester
has waived appellate review by failing to file specific
objections after receiving proper notice. Accordingly, we
affirm the judgment of the district court.
∗ Although it adopted the magistrate judge’s report, the
district court elected to dismiss the action without prejudice
rather than with prejudice as the magistrate judge had
recommended.

-- 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 --