Strable v. United States

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: October 25, 2000
• Docket: 00-1887
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

DONALD J. STRABLE,  Plaintiff-Appellant, v.  No. 00-1887 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant-Appellee.  Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., District Judge. (CA-00-886-6)

Submitted: October 12, 2000

Decided: October 25, 2000

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

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

COUNSEL

Donald J. Strable, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). 2 STRABLE v. UNITED STATES

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Donald J. Strable appeals the district court’s order dismissing his civil action. Strable’s case was referred to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (1994). The magistrate judge recom- mended that relief be denied and advised Strable that failure to file specific and timely objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the recommenda- tion. Despite this warning, Strable failed to file specific objections to the magistrate judge’s recommendation.

Pursuant to § 636(b)(1), a district court is required to conduct a de novo review of those portions of the magistrate judge’s report to which a specific objection has been made. The court need not conduct de novo review, however, "when a party makes general and conclu- sory objections that do not direct the court to a specific error in the magistrate’s proposed findings and recommendations." Orpiano v. Johnson, 687 F.2d 44, 47 (4th Cir. 1982); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). The timely filing of specific objections to a magistrate judge’s recom- mendation is necessary to preserve appellate review of the substance of that recommendation when the parties have been warned that fail- ure to so object will waive appellate review. See Orpiano, 687 F.3d at 47. Strable has waived appellate review by failing to direct the dis- trict court to specific errors in the magistrate judge’s report and rec- ommendation. See United States v. Schronce, 727 F.2d 91, 93-94 (4th Cir. 1994) (failure to file objections waives appellate review). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. 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 UNPUBLISHED

DONALD J. STRABLE,  Plaintiff-Appellant, v.  No. 00-1887 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant-Appellee.  Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., District Judge. (CA-00-886-6)

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

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). 2 STRABLE v. UNITED STATES

Donald J. Strable appeals the district court’s order dismissing his civil action. Strable’s case was referred to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (1994). The magistrate judge recom- mended that relief be denied and advised Strable that failure to file specific and timely objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the recommenda- tion. Despite this warning, Strable failed to file specific objections to the magistrate judge’s recommendation.

Pursuant to § 636(b)(1), a district court is required to conduct a de novo review of those portions of the magistrate judge’s report to which a specific objection has been made. The court need not conduct de novo review, however, "when a party makes general and conclu- sory objections that do not direct the court to a specific error in the magistrate’s proposed findings and recommendations." Orpiano v. Johnson, 687 F.2d 44, 47 (4th Cir. 1982); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). The timely filing of specific objections to a magistrate judge’s recom- mendation is necessary to preserve appellate review of the substance of that recommendation when the parties have been warned that fail- ure to so object will waive appellate review. See Orpiano, 687 F.3d at 47. Strable has waived appellate review by failing to direct the dis- trict court to specific errors in the magistrate judge’s report and rec- ommendation. See United States v. Schronce, 727 F.2d 91, 93-94 (4th Cir. 1994) (failure to file objections waives appellate review). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. 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