Cheryl Jones v. Vernon Beatty

Filing 920090914

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-1484

CHERYL J. JONES, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. VERNON D. BEATTY; BRENDA LYLES; CHIEF FISCHER; TYRONE GILMORE; AUDREY GRANT, Doctor; JOYCE LIPSCOMB; CITY-COUNTY OF SPARTANBURG; B. BARNET, Mayor; SHEVELLE PORTER, Weed See Board of Directors; GOVERNOR SANFORD; US HUD; SPARTANBURG HOUSING AUTHORITY; OCR-ATL; SEN GLENN REESE; US BOB INGLIS; COP-POLICE PROGRAM; SAVE THE CHILDREN INTERN; GREAT PREV PROGRAM DIRECTOR; AMERICORY VISTA FOSTER GRANDPART; BUTCH JAMES GREER; GREY TOLBERT; CHERYL HARLESTON; PARK & RECREATION; DALE WELLS; PRESENT COMMUNITY REL CHP; INTERIM DIR JETER; MARY JETER, wife; BENJAMIN WRIGHT; PAULA WIGGS; STAFF-BOARD OF DIRECTORS STTA; MARY THOMAS; SPARTANBURG COUNTY FOUNDATION; CHRISTINE OGLESBY; BEN SNODDY, Reverend; LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR BAUER, Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Spartanburg. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior District Judge. (7:09-cv-00535-HMH)

Submitted:

September 10, 2009

Decided:

September 14, 2009

Before KING, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Cheryl J. Jones, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM: Cheryl adopting judge to and J. Jones appeals the district of court's the order

affirming her

the civil

recommendation complaint

magistrate for

dismiss

without

prejudice

failure to state a claim. to a magistrate judge

The district court referred this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B)

(2006).

The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied

and advised Jones 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,

Jones failed to 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 Jones

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

has waived appellate review by failing to file any 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