UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-7029

KENNETH TURNER,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

CRAVEN COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OFFICE, Sheriff, Jail Medical Personnel; DURHAM COUNTY JAIL, medical personnel, Sheriff; GUILFORD COUNTY JAIL, medical personnel, Sheriff; LARRY UNKNOWN, Craven County Jail, medical personnel; BARBARA UNKNOWN, Craven County Jail, medical personnel; TRISH CALLISON, RN,

Defendants - Appellees,

and

RUTH DAVIS; SUSAN AGUIRRE; D. PICKETT, RN,

Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Senior District Judge. (CA-01-572-5-F)

Submitted: January 15, 2004 Decided: January 27, 2004

Before WIDENER and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Kenneth Turner, Appellant Pro Se. Scott Christopher Hart, SUMRELL, SUGG, CARMICHAEL, HICKS & HART, PA, New Bern, North Carolina; Steven Price Weaver, Richard David Yeoman, TUGGLE, DUGGINS & MESCHAN, PA, Greensboro, North Carolina; Curtis Oscar Massey, II, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

- 2 - PER CURIAM:

Kenneth Turner appeals the district court’s order

dismissing his claims filed under

against various

local entities and individuals for deliberate indifference to

medical needs. The district court referred this case to a

magistrate judge pursuant to

(b)(1)(B)(2000). The

magistrate judge issued a report and recommendation (“MRR”) in

which he recommended dismissing the claims against all but three

individual defendants so that service of process could be

perfected. The district court adopted the MRR to the extent that

it recommended dismissing Turner’s claims. The district court

further ordered that Turner’s claims against the remaining three

defendants be dismissed.

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,

(4th Cir. 1985); see also

Thomas v. Arn,

(1985). We conclude Turner has waived

appellate review of the MRR’s recommendation to dismiss because he

did not file specific objections to this recommendation after

receiving proper notice.

With regard to the district court’s dismissal of the claims

against the three remaining individual defendants, we have reviewed

- 3 - the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm

for the reasons stated by the district court. See Turner v. Craven

County Comm’rs Office, No. CA-01-572-5-F (E.D.N.C. Apr. 28, 2003).

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

- 4 -