Richard Lynn Stearns Miller, Plaintiff-appellant, v. South Carolina Department of Corrections, William D. Leeke,commissioner, Board of Commissioners, Defendants-appellees, 829 F.2d 36 (4th Cir. 1987)

Annotate this Case
US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit - 829 F.2d 36 (4th Cir. 1987) Submitted July 24, 1987. Decided September 8, 1987

Richard Lynn Stearns Miller, appellant pro se.

Before K.K. HALL and SPROUSE, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM:


Richard Miller, a South Carolina inmate, appeals the district court's dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. We affirm.

Miller's complaint was referred to a magistrate for review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) (1) (B). On April 21, 1987, the magistrate filed his report recommending that the complaint be dismissed. Miller was sent a copy of the magistrate's recommendation along with notification that failure to object to the magistrate's report within 10 days would result in waiver of his right to appeal the district court's judgment. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) (1) (c). Miller failed to file objections. On May 27, 1987, the district court adopted the recommendation of the magistrate and dismissed the complaint. Miller appealed.

The failure to timely object to a magistrate's report and recommendation waives appellate review of the substance of that report if notification was given as to the need to timely object. Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841 (4th Cir. 1985); United States v. Schronce, 727 F.2d 91 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 467 U.S. 1208 (1984). See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Miller was given notification but, nevertheless, he failed to timely object. Therefore, he has waived appellate review.

Because the dispositive issues recently have been decided authoritatively, we dispense with oral argument, deny appellant's motion for appointment of counsel and affirm the judgment of the district court.

AFFIRMED.

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.