Yancey v. Ellis, Corr Officer

Filing 920061218

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-7140

BENJAMIN YANCEY, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus CORRECTIONAL OFFICER ELLIS; OFFICER HARELLEL; SERGEANT, OFFICER, STEARN, CORRECTIONAL CORRECTIONAL Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, Chief District Judge. (3:05-cv-00841-JRS)

Submitted:

November 15, 2006

Decided:

December 18, 2006

Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Benjamin Yancey, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM: Benjamin Yancey appeals the district court's order The

denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint.

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 Yancey 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, Yancey 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). Yancey 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 -