Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-16-06153/USCOURTS-ca4-16-06153-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 

---

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-6153

NATHANAEL L. REYNOLDS,

Plaintiff – Appellant,

v.

SHERIFF JOHN H. BARTELL, JR.; INVESTIGATOR KENNEDY; OFFICER 

W. JACKSON, #310,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Florence. Mary G. Lewis, District Judge. 

(4:15-cv-00695-MGL)

Submitted: April 8, 2016 Decided: April 13, 2016

Before WILKINSON, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Nathanael L. Reynolds, Appellant Pro Se. Edgar Lloyd Willcox, 

II, WILLCOX BUYCK & WILLIAMS, PA, Florence, South Carolina, for 

Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-6153 Doc: 14 Filed: 04/13/2016 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Nathanael L. Reynolds 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 Reynolds 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). Reynolds 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

Appeal: 16-6153 Doc: 14 Filed: 04/13/2016 Pg: 2 of 2