Cornelius Tucker, Jr., Plaintiff-appellant, v. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr., U.S. District Judge; P. Trevorsharp, U.S. District Magistrate Judge; J.b. French, Warden,central Prison; Physician Blalock; D.b. Clement,registered Nurse, Defendants-appellees, 50 F.3d 8 (4th Cir. 1995)

Annotate this Case
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit - 50 F.3d 8 (4th Cir. 1995)

Submitted: February 16, 1995Decided: March 20, 1995


Cornelius Tucker, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.

Before HAMILTON and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and CHAPMAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM:


Appellant appeals the district court's order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988) complaint.*  Appellant's case was referred to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) (1) (B) (1988). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Appellant 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, Appellant failed to object to the magistrate judge's recommendation.

The timely filing of 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. Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985). See generally Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Appellant 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

 *

Tucker stated in his notice of appeal that he did, in fact, file objections to the magistrate judge's recommendation. If so, he may move for relief from the district court judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60