Booker v. Jarrett, No. 05-7676 (4th Cir. 2006)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-7676 ROBERT CECIL BOOKER, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus SERGEANT JARRETT; OTHER UNKNOWN CORRECTIONAL OFFICERS, at the South Central Regional Jail, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Charleston. Joseph Robert Goodwin, District Judge. (CA-05-2-2) Submitted: January 19, 2006 Decided: January 26, 2006 Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Robert Cecil Booker, Appellant Pro Se. Chad Marlo Cardinal, Assistant Attorney General, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellees Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Robert Cecil Booker appeals 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) (2000). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Booker 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, Booker failed to object to the magistrate judge s recommendation. The timely filing of specific objections to a magistrate judge s recommendation is necessary to preserve appellate review of the substance of that recommendation when the parties have been warned that failure to object will waive appellate review. See Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Booker has waived appellate review by failing to file 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 before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED - 2 -

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.