Randy L. Valentine v. ERVIN BREWSTER, Detective

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-7880
RANDY L. VALENTINE,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
ERVIN BREWSTER, Detective,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District
Judge. (4:07-cv-01397-HMH)
Submitted: January 15, 2009 Decided: January 23, 2009
Before MOTZ and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Randy L. Valentine, Appellant Pro Se. Amy Miller Snyder,
CLARKSON, WALSH, RHENEY & TERRELL, PA, Greenville, South
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Randy L. Valentine appeals the district court’s order
denying relief on 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 Valentine 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).
Valentine 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 --