Gilchrist v. Reid

Filing 920061222

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-7861

ROBERT TAYLOR GILCHRIST, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus GEORGE REID; WILLIAM WILLIS; CARRIE CRESTWELL; MS. TUTT, KEATH PARKS; Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Patrick Michael Duffy, District Judge. (3:05-cv-03338-PMD)

Submitted: December 14, 2006

Decided:

December 22, 2006

Before MICHAEL, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Robert Taylor Gilchrist, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. George Preston Callison, Jr., CALLISON, DORN, THOMASON & KNOTT, PA, Greenwood, South Carolina; William Henry Davidson, II, Matthew Blaine Rosbrugh, DAVIDSON, MORRISON & LINDEMANN, PA, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM: Robert Taylor Gilchrist, Jr., 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 The magistrate

judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2000).

judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Gilchrist 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, Gilchrist 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). Gilchrist 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 -