George Milton, Jr. v. Officer Wilson

Filing 920090318

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-8462

GEORGE THOMAS MILTON, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, v. OFFICER WILSON; CAPTAIN A. THOMAS; LIEUTENANT MARGARET BELL, Associate Warden; OFFICER GOODEN, Defendants - Appellees. RICHSON;

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District Judge. (2:07-cv-03921-HMH)

Submitted:

March 12, 2009

Decided:

March 18, 2009

Before MOTZ and Circuit Judge.

SHEDD,

Circuit

Judges,

and

HAMILTON,

Senior

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

George Thomas Milton, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Walker Heinitsh Willcox, WILLCOX, BUYCK & WILLIAMS, PA, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM: George Thomas Milton, Jr., seeks to appeal the

district court's order dismissing 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) (2006). The magistrate judge recommended that summary judgment be

granted for the Defendants and advised Milton that failure to file specific and timely objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the recommendation. Despite this warning, Milton 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.

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

Cir. 1985); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). has waived appellate after review by failing notice. to file

objections

receiving

proper

Accordingly,

dismiss the appeal. 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. DISMISSED 2