The opinion
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-7858
ERIC MARADIAGA,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
OFFICER E. BETHEA; MAJOR GORE; WARDEN STEVENSON; DHO J.C.
BROWN; SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence. Patrick Michael Duffy, Senior
District Judge. (4:08-cv-00226-PJM)
Submitted: January 19, 2010 Decided: January 28, 2010
Before NIEMEYER, KING, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Eric Maradiaga, Appellant Pro Se. William Henry Davidson, II,
Matthew Blaine Rosbrugh, DAVIDSON & LINDEMANN, P.A., Columbia,
South Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Eric Maradiaga appeals the district court’s order
denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint and
denying his motion for reconsideration. The district court
referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1)(B) (2006). The magistrate judge recommended that
relief be denied and advised Maradiaga 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, Maradiaga failed to timely 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 (1985).
Maradiaga waived appellate review by failing to timely file
specific objections after receiving proper notice, and the
district court did not err in denying Maradiaga’s motion for
reconsideration. Accordingly, we affirm the judgments of the
district court.
2
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
3