Case ID: f-appx_627/html/0195-01.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

Ahmad MUHAMMAD-ALI, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. KU KLUXS KLANS; Correct Care Solutions; Aiken County; South Carolina, The State of; Aiken Public Safety; Aiken County Sheriffs Department; North Augusta Public Safety; Bucanan Auto; Department of Mental Health; Aiken County Detention Center, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 15-7596.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: Dec. 17, 2015.
    Decided: Dec. 22, 2015.
    Ahmad Muhammad-Ali, Appellant Pro Se.
    Before DIAZ and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
   Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Ahmad Muhammad-Ali 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 Muhammad-Ali 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). Muhammad-Ali has waived appellate review by failing to file specific objections after receiving proper notice. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.

We deny Muhammad-AIi’s motion for transcripts at government expense. 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.