Donita Marshall, Plaintiff-appellant, v. United States of America, Defendant-appellee, 924 F.2d 1052 (4th Cir. 1991)

Annotate this Case
US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit - 924 F.2d 1052 (4th Cir. 1991)

Submitted Jan. 7, 1991. Decided Jan. 31, 1991


Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at New Bern. Malcolm J. Howard, District Judge. (CA-90-6-4-CIV-H)

Samuel Stuart Popkin, Popkin & Associates, Jacksonville, N.C., for appellant.

Margaret P. Currin, United States Attorney, Eileen G. Coffey, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, N.C., for appellee.

E.D.N.C.

AFFIRMED.

Before DONALD RUSSELL, WIDENER and K.K. HALL, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:


Donita Marshall appeals the district court's order dismissing this action brought pursuant to the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2671-2680 (1988). Appellant's action was referred to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) (1) (B). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised appellant that the failure to file timely objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the recommendation. Despite this warning, appellant failed to object to the magistrate judge's recommendation.

This Court has held that the timely filing of objections to a magistrate judge's recommendation is necessary to preserve appellate review of the substance of that recommendation where the parties have been warned that failure to object will waive appellate review. 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). Appellant has waived appellate review by failing to file objections after receiving proper notice. We accordingly affirm the judgment of the district court. We dispense with oral argument because the dispositive issues recently have been decided authoritatively.

AFFIRMED.