Hickmon v. Harlee

Filing 920070412

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-2037

HANNAH HICKMON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus MARY BETH HARLEE; CHARLES J. CUNNING, Doctor; PENNI GRIFFIN; WALT GRIFFIN; LIMESTONE COLLEGE, Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Spartanburg. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., District Judge. (7:06-cv-01504-GRA)

Submitted:

March 28, 2007

Decided:

April 12, 2007

Before MICHAEL, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Hannah Hickmon, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM: Hannah Hickmon 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 Hickmon 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, Hickmon 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). Hickmon 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 -