Cheryl J. Jones v. Vernon D. Beatty

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-1484
CHERYL J. JONES,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
VERNON D. BEATTY; BRENDA LYLES; CHIEF FISCHER; TYRONE
GILMORE; AUDREY GRANT, Doctor; JOYCE LIPSCOMB; CITY-COUNTY
OF SPARTANBURG; B. BARNET, Mayor; SHEVELLE PORTER, Weed See
Board of Directors; GOVERNOR SANFORD; US HUD; SPARTANBURG
HOUSING AUTHORITY; OCR-ATL; SEN GLENN REESE; US BOB INGLIS;
COP-POLICE PROGRAM; SAVE THE CHILDREN INTERN; GREAT PREV
PROGRAM DIRECTOR; AMERICORY VISTA FOSTER GRANDPART; BUTCH
JAMES GREER; GREY TOLBERT; CHERYL HARLESTON; PARK &
RECREATION; DALE WELLS; PRESENT COMMUNITY REL CHP; INTERIM
DIR JETER; MARY JETER, wife; BENJAMIN WRIGHT; PAULA WIGGS;
STAFF-BOARD OF DIRECTORS STTA; MARY THOMAS; SPARTANBURG
COUNTY FOUNDATION; CHRISTINE OGLESBY; BEN SNODDY, Reverend;
LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR BAUER,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Spartanburg. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior
District Judge. (7:09-cv-00535-HMH)
Submitted: September 10, 2009 Decided: September 14, 2009
Before KING, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Cheryl J. Jones, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Cheryl J. Jones appeals the district court’s order
adopting and affirming the recommendation of the magistrate
judge to dismiss her civil complaint without prejudice for
failure to state a claim. The district court referred this case
to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B)
(2006). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied
and advised Jones 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,
Jones 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). Jones
has waived appellate review by failing to file any 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 --