UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

STANLEY LORENZO WILLIAMS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

ROBERT CANADAY, Sheriff; M. G.
MORRIS, Judge of Probate; MARK
                                                               No. 99-7563
TARLTON, Judicial Official; A.
REDMON, Judicial Official; R. T.
HARRINGTON, Police Officer; PAMELA
WALKER, Deputy Clerk,
Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham.
Frank W. Bullock, Jr., District Judge.
(CA-99-605-1)

Submitted: March 10, 2000

Decided: March 30, 2000

Before WILKINS, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Stanley Lorenzo Williams, Appellant Pro Se.

_________________________________________________________________
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Stanley Lorenzo Williams appeals the district court's order dis-
missing his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 1999) complaint. Wil-
liams' case was referred to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1)(B) (1994). The magistrate judge recommended that relief
be denied and advised Williams that failure to file objections to the
report and recommendation within ten days could waive appellate
review of a district court order based upon the recommendation. The
district court found Williams failed to timely object to the magistrate
judge's report and recommendation, adopted the report and recom-
mendation, and dismissed Williams' § 1983 action. Williams timely
appealed, alleging he did in fact file timely objections to the magis-
trate judge's report and recommendation.

We conclude from the record that Williams is correct. Williams
filed objections to the magistrate judge's report and recommendation
on August 1, 1999,* within ten days of the magistrate judge's July 23
report. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(a). Though that document was "stricken"
without prejudice for lack of a certificate of service, Williams filed
such a certificate before the court's August 30, 1999 deadline to do
so.

The district court's error, however, does not entitle Williams to
relief. We have reviewed the record, the magistrate judge's report and
recommendation, and Williams' objections and conclude that the
magistrate judge's report and recommendation correctly addressed
_________________________________________________________________

*Under Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 276 (1988), an inmate's plead-
ings are considered filed on the day they are given to prison officials for
mailing. Even if Williams' objections are considered filed August 5,
1999, the day they were received by the district court, they are timely
under Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(a).

                     2
Williams' claims. Accordingly, we affirm the district court's order
dismissing Williams' § 1983 complaint on the reasoning of the magis-
trate judge, which the district court adopted. We dispense with oral
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately pre-
sented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid
the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

                   3
