Filed: Feb. 21, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-6838 GREGORY W. BUCKLEW, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus RONALD ANGELONE, Director; SHERIFF WEATHERHOLTZ, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, District Judge. (CA-94-872) Submitted: February 7, 1996 Decided: February 21, 1996 Before MURNAGHAN and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpu
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-6838 GREGORY W. BUCKLEW, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus RONALD ANGELONE, Director; SHERIFF WEATHERHOLTZ, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, District Judge. (CA-94-872) Submitted: February 7, 1996 Decided: February 21, 1996 Before MURNAGHAN and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpub..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 95-6838
GREGORY W. BUCKLEW,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
RONALD ANGELONE, Director; SHERIFF WEATHERHOLTZ,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis-
trict of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, District Judge.
(CA-94-872)
Submitted: February 7, 1996 Decided: February 21, 1996
Before MURNAGHAN and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Gregory W. Bucklew, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Appellant appeals the district court's order dismissing his 42
U.S.C. § 1983 (1988) complaint. Appellant's case was referred to a
magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (1988). The
magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised
Appellant that failure to file timely objections to this recommen-
dation 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 deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss
the appeal. 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.
DISMISSED
2