Gregory Ford v. Simon Major

Filing 920081020

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-7111

GREGORY LAFARAL FORD, a/k/a Gregory L. Ford, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. SIMON MAJOR, Director, Sumter Lee Regional Detention Center; JACKIE RICHARDS, Head Nurse, Sumter Lee Regional Detention Center, Defendants ­ Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Anderson. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District Judge. (8:07-cv-01581-HMH)

Submitted:

October 14, 2008

Decided:

October 20, 2008

Before KING, GREGORY, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Gregory Lafaral Ford, Appellant Pro Se. James M. Davis, Jr., Joel Steve Hughes, DAVIDSON & LINDEMANN, PA, Columbia, South Carolina; Andrew S. Halio, Elliott T. Halio, HALIO & HALIO, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM: Gregory Lafaral Ford 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 Ford 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, Ford failed to timely

object 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.

Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Ford

Cir. 1985); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985).

has waived appellate review by failing to timely file specific objections after receiving proper notice. Accordingly, we deny

Ford's motion for transcript at government expense and affirm the judgment of the district court. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials

Ford's objections were filed July 1, 2008, over a month after the court entered its judgment. 2

*

before

the

court

and

argument

would

not

aid

the

decisional

process. AFFIRMED

3