Case ID: f-appx_710/html/0168-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Christopher LANCASTER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. J. TODD, Officer; Officer Artrip; B. Kunkle, Officer; Officer Ferell; M. Doyle, Lieutenant; Nurse Myers; Nurse Fowler; Nurse Hileman; Lieutenant Harrison; Warden Terry O’Brien; Associate Warden Odom; Executive Assistant Thompson; Nurse Dawson; Captain Gilly; D. Jones, Counselor; Sherk; C. Troopman, Position Officer; C. Bennet, Position Counselor; B. Michaels, Position Officer; Merkergo; Bradly, Position Officer; Allison, Position Officer; Andrews, Position Officer; Boyard, Position Officer; and all unknown not listed in complaint, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 17-7412
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: January 30, 2018
    Decided: February 2, 2018
    Christopher Lancaster, Appellant Pro Se. Erin K. Reisenweber, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Martins-burg, West Virginia, for Appellees.
    . Before MOTZ and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON,' Senior Circuit Judge.
   Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Christopher Lancaster appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his complaint filed pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971). 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 Lancaster 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, 106 S.Ct. 466, 88 L.Ed.2d 435 (1985). Lancaster has waived appellate review by failing to file objections in the district court after receiving proper notice. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment.

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