David Washington v. Daryl Burns

Filing 920081125

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-1924

DAVID J. WASHINGTON, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. DARYL L. BURNS, Marion County Magistrate; DIANE SCOTT; JUDGE BRISTOW; SHERIFF MARK RICHARDSON, Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge. (4:08-cv-00316-RBH)

Submitted:

November 20, 2008

Decided:

November 25, 2008

Before MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

David J. Washington, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM: David J. Washington 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 Washington 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, Washington failed to file

specific objections to the magistrate judge's recommendation. The magistrate timely filing of specific is objections to to a

judge's

recommendation

necessary

preserve

appellate review of the substance of that recommendation when the parties have been warned of the consequences of

noncompliance. Cir. 1985); see

Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985).

Washington has waived appellate review by failing to timely file specific objections after receiving proper notice. States v. Midgette, 478 F.3d 616, 622 (4th See United Cir. 2007). We

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. deny Washington's motion for recusal, finding it meritless.

2

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal before contentions the court are and adequately argument presented not in aid the the materials decisional

would

process. AFFIRMED

3