Charles Penland, Sr. v. The Honorable Judge Couch

Filing 920090309

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-8495

CHARLES W. PENLAND, SR., Plaintiff - Appellant, v. THE HONORABLE JUDGE COUCH; LARRY W. PROPES, Clerk of Court Columbia; KENNETH REINSTAFF, Clerk of Court Spartanburg County South Carolina; STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Spartanburg. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District Judge. (7:08-cv-03104-HMH)

Submitted:

February 26, 2009

Decided:

March 9, 2009

Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Charles W. Penland, Sr., Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM: Charles W. Penland, Sr., appeals the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) civil rights 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 relief be denied and

advised Penland that failure to file specific objections to this recommendation would waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the recommendation. Although Penland filed a

response to the magistrate judge's recommendation, he did not specifically object to the dispositive portions of 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.

United States v. Midgette, 478 F.3d 616, 621-22

(4th Cir. 2007); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Penland has waived appellate review by failing to 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

2

before

the

court

and

argument

would

not

aid

the

decisional

process. AFFIRMED

3