Hunter v. Turner

Filing 920080124

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-7221

DARRELL DEVON HUNTER, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus R. C. TURNER, DHO; SERGEANT HORN; OFFICER GLENN; TIM RILEY, Warden; BROCK; OFFICER GRANT, IGC; HERB JOHNS; OFFICER RICE; OFFICER BISHOP; W. CALHOUN, Sergeant; SERGEANT JOHNSON; OFFICER CAMPBELL; SERGEANT DAVIS; OFFICER GOSSETT; CAPTAIN ALEXANDER; DAVID CAMPBELL, Officer, B1 Shift; K. DAVIS, Sergeant, B2 night shift, Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District Judge. (0:06-cv-03406)

Submitted:

January 17, 2008

Decided:

January 24, 2008

Before TRAXLER, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Darrell Devon Hunter, Appellant Pro Se. John Evans James, III, LEE, ERTER, WILSON, JAMES, HOLLER & SMITH, Sumter, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM: Darrell Devon Hunter 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 judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2000). The magistrate judge recommended

that relief be denied and advised Hunter that failure to file timely specific objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review of a district this court order Hunter based failed upon to the file

recommendation.

Despite

warning,

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). Hunter 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 -