Opinion
22-7407
06-26-2023
TROY WORSLEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. EDDIE ANDERSON, In his individual capacity; ALICIA WILSON, In her individual capacity; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendants - Appellees.
Troy Worsley, Appellant Pro Se.
UNPUBLISHED
Submitted: June 22, 2023
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Clarksburg. Thomas S. Kleeh, Chief District Judge. (1:19-cv-00213-TSK)
Troy Worsley, Appellant Pro Se.
Before HARRIS and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Troy Worsley appeals the district court's orders denying relief on Worsley's complaint filed pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971) ("dismissal order"), and denying Worsley's self-styled motion for relief from the dismissal order ("motion for relief").[*] The district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied in Worsley's Bivens action and advised Worsley that failure to file timely, specific objections to the recommendations would waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the recommendations.
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. Martin v. Duffy, 858 F.3d 239, 245 (4th Cir. 2017); Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 846-47 (4th Cir. 1985); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 154-55 (1985). Although Worsley received proper notice and an extension of time to file objections-and ultimately filed objections to the magistrate judge's recommendations-he has forfeited appellate review because the objections were untimely. We find that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for relief. See Fed. Trade Comm'n v. Pukke, 53 F.4th 80, 106 (4th Cir. 2022) (reviewing district court's order denying Rule 60(b) motion for abuse of discretion and noting that disposing of such a motion "is a matter which lies largely within the discretion of the trial judge and [that] his action is not lightly to be disturbed by an appellate court" (internal quotation marks omitted)). Accordingly, we affirm the appealed-from orders. Worsley v. Anderson, No. 1:19-cv-00213-TSK (N.D. W.Va. Mar. 31, 2021; Sept. 22, 2022).
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
[*] As the motion for relief was filed within 28 days of the dismissal order, we have jurisdiction over both orders. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4)(A)(vi).