Nathaniel Riley, II v. Mark Bourdon

Filing 920090727

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-1144

NATHANIEL C. RILEY, II, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. MARK BOURDON; SWACKY, CHARLES M. CONDON; HENRY MCMASTER; DAVID

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior District Judge. (2:08-cv-03899-HMH)

Submitted:

July 23, 2009

Decided:

July 27, 2009

Before WILKINSON and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Nathaniel C. Riley, II, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM: Nathaniel C. Riley, II, appeals the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) 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 Riley that failure to file specific, timely objections to this

recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order Riley based failed upon to the file recommendation. specific Despite to this the warning,

objections

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 Riley

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

affirm the judgment of the district court. 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 2