Opinion
No. 15-2315
04-25-2016
ANTHONY MAURICE PEAKE, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. MARLANE BECKER; RICHARD MONTONI; PAUL BUCHANAN; LESLEY MOXLEY; TIMOTHY SMITH; MELISSA BLIZZARD; SCOTT CROSSMAN; JASON G. BETTIS; JOHN CARTER; VERA PEARSON; GEORGE COLLINS; LOUIS F. FOY; ERNEST LEE; DAISEY BLUE; JACQUELINE MULL; MALVIN SUTTON; VIRGIL HOLLINGSWORTH; ED BROWN; JEFF HUDSON; BEVERLY YVETTE JACKSON; DONNA THOMAS; JOHN OLSEN; JACOB EVANS, JR.; AMIEL ROSSABI; CARLA WEST, Defendants - Appellees.
Anthony Maurice Peake, Appellant Pro Se.
UNPUBLISHED Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (7:14-cv-00293-FL) Before WILKINSON, KING, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Anthony Maurice Peake, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:
Anthony Maurice Peake appeals the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint. The district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2012). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Peake that failure to file timely 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. Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Peake has waived appellate review by failing to file objections 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