Larry S. Poinsett v. Martin Gorski Larry Troxel C.O.A.S. Pratt William Cato, Defendants

862 F.2d 870, 1988 U.S. App. LEXIS 16123, 1988 WL 124972

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: November 23, 1988
• Docket: 88-7231
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

862 F.2d 870
Unpublished Disposition

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.
Larry S. POINSETT, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Martin GORSKI; Larry Troxel; C.O.A.S. Pratt; William
Cato, Defendants- Appellees.

No. 88-7231.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Sept. 30, 1988.
Decided: Nov. 23, 1988.

Larry S. Poinsett, appellant pro se.

Before DONALD RUSSELL, WIDENER and JAMES DICKSON PHILLIPS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Larry S. Poinsett appeals the district court's order dismissing this 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 action. Appellant's action was referred to a magistrate pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 636(b)(1)(B). The magistrate 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's recommendation within the prescribed time period.

This Court has held that the timely filing of objections to a magistrate'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 timely objections after receiving proper notice. We accordingly affirm the judgment of the district court. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal arguments are adequately presented in the materials before the Court and oral argument would not significantly aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED.