Opinion
22-1088
07-28-2022
DERRICK MICHAEL ALLEN, SR., Plaintiff - Appellant, v. DURHAM COUNTY MAGISTRATE OFFICE; SETH KENDL; COUNTY POLICE DEPARTMENT; OFFICER D. BARTLETT; DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE; DURHAM COUNTY HEMPSTEAD; JUDGE DORETTIA WALKER, DURHAM DURHAM JAIL; K. Defendants - Appellees.
Derrick Michael Allen, Sr., Appellant Pro Se.
UNPUBLISHED
Submitted: July 26, 2022
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Thomas D. Schroeder, Chief District Judge. (1:20-cv-00090-TDS-LPA)
Derrick Michael Allen, Sr., Appellant Pro Se.
Before MOTZ, KING, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM.
Derrick Michael Allen, Sr., appeals the district court's order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. 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 and advised Allen that failure to file timely, specific objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the 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. 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). Allen has waived appellate review by failing to file objections to the magistrate judge's recommendation after receiving proper notice.
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. 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.