Opinion
Nos. 10-1356, 10-1426.
Submitted: November 23, 2010.
Decided: December 28, 2010.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Bluefield. David A. Faber, Senior District Judge. (1:09-cv-00028; 1:09-cv-00210)
Jay H. Lee, Charly J. Lee, Julie R. Lee, Appellants Pro Se. Kelly Rixner Curry, J. Christopher Krivonyak, Assistant United States Attorneys, Charleston, West Virginia; Kevin A. Nelson, Huddleston Bolen, LLP, Charleston, West Virginia; Michelle Piziak, Steptoe Johnson, LLP, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellees.
Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Jay H. Lee, Charly J. Lee, and Julie R. Lee ("Appellants") appeal the district court's order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on their civil complaint and outstanding motions alleging housing discrimination by federal, state, and local agencies and their respective employees. 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 Appellants that failure to file timely specific objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the recommendation.
In appeal No. 10-1356, Appellants identity the order appealed from as dated March 8, 2010, and later reference an order dated March 11, 2010; however, we found no orders entered on those dates.
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). Appellants have waived appellate review by failing to properly file specific objections after receiving proper notice. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. We grant the Lees' motion for access to the restricted access document filed by them and deny their motions to seal and for mandamus.
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.