396 F. App'x 940
4th Cir.
2010

ALISON LEVON BOYD v. MAGISTRATE JUDGE

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit

940

PER CURIAM:

Alison Levon Boyd appeals the district court‘s order adopting the magistrate judge‘s report and recommendation and dismissing his complaint as frivolous. 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 Boyd 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, Boyd 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, 106 S.Ct. 466, 88 L.Ed.2d 435 (1985). Boyd waived appellate review by failing to timely file specific objections after receiving proper notice. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. We also deny Boyd‘s motions for appointment of counsel and return of property. 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.

BILLY K. CRUEY; B.K. CRUEY, PC, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. RICKY LEE EARLY; HOWARD M. GREGORY; ERIC NESTER; ELINOR E. WILLIAMS, as Magistrate and Agent for the County of Montgomery, Virginia; KAREN SUE GARNAND, Magistrate and Agent for the County of Montgomery, Virginia, Defendants-Appellees, and STEPHEN C. HUFF, JR.; R.J. KIRBY, Individually, and as Deputy Sheriff, and as agent for J.T. WHITT, Sheriff, and Montgomery County, Virginia; D.L. CONNER, Individually, and as Deputy Sheriff, and as agent for J.T. WHITT, Sheriff, and Montgomery County, Virginia; J.T. WHITT, Individually, and as Sheriff, Montgomery County, Virginia, and as agent for Montgomery County, Virginia; ROGER DALE NESTER; BRUCE W. NESTER; COUNTY OF MONTGOMERY, VIRGINIA, Defendants.

No. 10-1564

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit

Decided: Sept. 30, 2010

Submitted: Sept. 28, 2010.

Billy K. Cruey, B.K. Cruey, PC, Shawsville, Virginia, for Appellants. Matthew E. Kelley, Frith, Anderson & Peake, PC, Roanoke, Virginia; Isak Jordan Howell, Mark Douglas Loftis, Woods Rogers, PLC, Roanoke, Virginia; Christy Monolo, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.

Before WILKINSON, SHEDD, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Billy K. Cruey, acting on behalf of himself and his law firm, B.K. Cruey, PC, seeks to appeal the district court‘s orders dismissing some, but not all, defendants and denying his Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b) motion. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2006), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2006); Fed. R.Civ.P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-46, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949). The orders that Cruey seeks to appeal are neither final orders nor are they appealable interlocutory or collateral orders. See McCall v. Deeds, 849 F.2d 1259, 1259 (9th Cir. 1988) (“[T]he denial of Rule 54(b) certification is not appealable.“); Robinson v. Parke-Davis & Co., 685 F.2d 912, 913 (4th Cir.1982) (holding that dismissal of some, but not all, claims or parties not immediately appealable absent Rule 54(b) certification). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. 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.

RICHARD GRANT, SR., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ISEC, INCORPORATED; DONALD FILLINKS, Jointly and severally in his official capacity as Foreman or Superintendant; MICHAEL SAFECHUCK, Jointly and severally in his official capacity as Foreman or Superintendant; GABE SHERMAN, Jointly and severally in his official capacity as Foreman or Superintendant; RICHARD SPRINGER, Jointly and severally in his official capacity as Director of Human Resources; MICHAEL HANNEKE, Jointly and severally in his official capacity as Foreman or Superintendant; JAMES MCALLISTER, Jointly and severally in his official capacity as Vice-President of Eastern Operations; JEFFREY MORROW, Jointly and severally in his official capacity as Installation Manager; LOUIS DANIELS, Jointly and severally in his official capacity as Foreman or Superintendant, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 10-1584

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit

Decided: Sept. 30, 2010

Submitted: Sept. 28, 2010.

Richard Grant, Sr., Appellant Pro Se. Melissa Hammock, Bruce Stephen Harrison, Shawe & Rosenthal, LLP, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.