ADAMS v. U.S., 279 Fed.Appx. 224 (4th Cir. 2008)

Ross W. ADAMS, Sr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES FOREST SERVICE; Nancy Adams, Trustee for Mattie Adams; Judy Clark, Defendants -Appellees.

No. 08-1045.United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.Submitted: May 22, 2008.
Decided: May 28, 2008.

[EDITOR’S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Bryson City. Lacy H. Thornburg, District Judge. (2:07-cv-00019-LHT-DLH).

Ross W. Adams, Sr., Appellant Pro Se. Paul Bradford Taylor, Office of the United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina; James V. Parker, Jr., Parker Law Firm, PC, Hayesville, North Carolina, for Appellees.

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

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


Ross W. Adams, Sr., appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 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 Adams 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, Adams failed to file specific objections 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. United States v. Midgette, 478 F.3d 616, 621 (4th Cir. 2007); 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,

Page 225

88 L.Ed.2d 435 (1985). Adams 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.