Staley v. Marion County Detention

Filing 920061011

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-7023

DANIEL LEVERN STALEY, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus MARION COUNTY DETENTION CENTER; MR. WT, Head Jailer; JANE DOE, Nurse, Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Beaufort. Patrick Michael Duffy, District Judge. (9:05-cv-03113-PMD)

Submitted: September 28, 2006

Decided: October 11, 2006

Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Daniel Levern Staley, Appellant Pro Se. Benjamin Albert Baroody, AIKEN, BRIDGES, NUNN, ELLIOTT & TYLER, P.A., Florence, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM: Daniel Levern Staley appeals the district court's order dismissing 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 Staley that failure to file timely and specific objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the

recommendation. As the district court found, despite this warning, Staley failed to file specific objections 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). Staley 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 -