Taylor v. Gainey

203 F. App'x 426
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit·Decided October 10, 2006·No. 06-6940·Unpublished·Cited by 6 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Doretha C. Taylor appeals the district court’s order denying relief on her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. The district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2000). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Taylor 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, Taylor failed to object to the magistrate judge’s recommendation.

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 of the consequences of noncompliance. Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 106 S.Ct. 466, 88 L.Ed.2d 435 (1985). Taylor has waived appellate review by failing to timely file specific 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.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Taylor v. Gainey, 203 F. App'x 426 (4th Cir. 2006).

203 F. App'x 426 (Taylor v. Gainey) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Johnson v. Warden
S.D. West Virginia, 2022
Adams v. 3D Systems Inc
D. South Carolina, 2020
Halcomb v. Ocean
D. South Carolina, 2020
Walker v. Koon
D. South Carolina, 2019
Holmes v. Esper
D. South Carolina, 2019