Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-15-07248/USCOURTS-ca4-15-07248-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Ray A. Blanchard
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-7248

RAY A. BLANCHARD,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern 

District of West Virginia, at Elkins. John Preston Bailey, 

District Judge. (2:14-cv-00058-JPB-JES)

Submitted: November 17, 2015 Decided: November 20, 2015

Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ray A. Blanchard, Appellant Pro Se. Erin K. Reisenweber, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Martinsburg, West Virginia, 

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-7248 Doc: 10 Filed: 11/20/2015 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Ray A. Blanchard seeks to appeal the district court’s order 

accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and 

dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2671 (2012) complaint under 28 U.S.C. 

§§ 1915(e)(2)(B), 1915A(b) (2012). 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 Blanchard 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). Blanchard has waived 

appellate review by failing to timely 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: 15-7248 Doc: 10 Filed: 11/20/2015 Pg: 2 of 2