Tony DeLoach v. South Carolina Department of C

Filing 920091203

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-7297

TONY DELOACH, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; BERNARD DAVID TARTARSKY; MS. HILL, IGC; JOHN AND JANE DOES, Defendants - Appellees. MCKIE;

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior District Judge. (4:08-cv-03113-HMH)

Submitted:

November 13, 2009

Decided:

December 3, 2009

Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Tony DeLoach, Appellant Pro Se. Roy F. Laney, Heath McAlvin Stewart, III, RILEY, POPE & LANEY, LLC, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM: Tony DeLoach appeals the district court's order The

denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint.

district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) relief be (2006). denied and The magistrate DeLoach to judge that this

recommended failure to

that

advised

timely

file

specific

objections

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

DeLoach

failed

to

timely

specific

objections

magistrate judge's report and 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. Cir. 1985); see

Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985).

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

2

before

the

court

and

argument

would

not

aid

the

decisional

process. AFFIRMED

3