U.S. v. HARROD, 393 Fed.Appx. 121 (4th Cir. 2010)

No. 10-1383.United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.Submitted: August 26, 2010.
Decided: August 31, 2010.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, Senior District Judge. (3:09-cv-00689-REP).

Dale L. Sadler, Appellant Pro Se. Debra J. Prillaman, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

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

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Dale L. Sadler appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his complaint. The district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 636(b)(1)(B) (West 2006 Supp. 2010). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Sadler that failure to file timely objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the 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. Am, 474 U.S. 140, 106 S.Ct. 466, 88 L.Ed.2d 435 (1985). Sadler has waived appellate review by failing to file objections after receiving proper notice. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court and deny Sadler’s motion to appoint counsel.

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.