Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-15-06524/USCOURTS-ca4-15-06524-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 

---

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-6524

DARRELL THOMPSON,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

FRANK L. PERRY; MR. SUMMERS, Superintendent; MR. STANBACK, 

Asst. Superintendent,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle 

District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Thomas D. Schroeder, 

District Judge. (1:15-cv-00125-TDS-LPA)

Submitted: June 25, 2015 Decided: June 30, 2015

Before GREGORY, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Darrell Thompson, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-6524 Doc: 12 Filed: 06/30/2015 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Darrell Thompson appeals the district court’s order denying 

relief without prejudice 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 Thompson 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). Thompson 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: 15-6524 Doc: 12 Filed: 06/30/2015 Pg: 2 of 2