The opinion
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-2299
JOHN D. WENTZKY,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
BROWN & COMPANY SECURITIES CORPORATION; THE
NASDAQ STOCK MARKET, INCORPORATED,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Anderson. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District Judge.
(CA-02-1858-20AK)
Submitted: February 6, 2003 Decided: February 12, 2003
Before WILKINS, MICHAEL, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
John D. Wentzky, Appellant Pro Se. Frank S. Holleman, III, Troy
Alan Tessier, WYCHE, BURGESS, FREEMAN & PARHAM, P.A., Greenville,
South Carolina; William Alexander Coates, ROE, CASSIDY, COATES &
PRICE, P.A., Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
John D. Wentzky appeals the district court’s order dismissing
his complaint against Brown & Co. Securities Corp. and the Nasdaq
Stock Market, Inc. 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
Wentzky 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, Wentzky
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 that failure to object will waive appellate review. See
Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985); see also
Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Wentzky has waived appellate
review by failing to file 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
2