Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
2d 689
Unpublished Disposition
In C/A No. 84-0279-A, Virginia inmate Thomas Epps alleged that his
constitutional rights were violated because he was unable to sleep due to the
noise level in the prison. Upon consent of the parties, this action, filed pursuant
to 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983, was referred to a magistrate for disposition pursuant to
28 U.S.C. Sec. 636(c). Epps then filed six additional Sec. 1983 actions (84-
This Court has held that the timely filing of objections to a magistrate's
recommendation is necessary to preserve appellate review of the substance of
that recommendation where the parties have been warned that failure to object
will waive appellate review. Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841 (4th Cir.1985);
United States v. Schronce, 727 F.2d 91 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 467 U.S. 1208
(1984). See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 130 (1985). In all cases except 84-0279A, Epps has waived appellate review by failing to file objections after receiving
proper notice. We accordingly affirm the judgment of the district court in 840410-A, 85-0080-A, 85-0081-A, 85-0139-A, 85-0227-A, and 85-0216-A.
AFFIRMED.