Rankins v. Spruill

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

Rankins v. Spruill

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-6787

MICHAEL RANKINS,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

FRED A. SPRUILL, Sheriff; WALTER LYNNHEART; G. JACKSON,

Defendants - Appellees,

and

CHOWAN COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT; CHOWAN COUNTY DETENTION FACILITY; JAILER JOHN DOE,

Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District Judge. (CA-93-406-H)

Submitted: January 9, 1997 Decided: January 21, 1997

Before HALL and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael Rankins, Appellant Pro Se. Cheryl A. Marteney, WARD & SMITH, P.A., New Bern, North Carolina, for Appellees. 2 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

3 PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals the district court's order dismissing his

42 U.S.C. § 1983

(1994) complaint. Appellant's case was referred to a

magistrate judge pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 636

(b)(1)(B) (1994). The

magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised

Appellant that failure to file timely objections to this recom- mendation 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 deny

Appellant's motion for appointment of counsel and dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequate-

ly presented in the materials before the court and argument would

not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

4

Reference

Status
Unpublished