Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-16-07025/USCOURTS-ca4-16-07025-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Michael Johnson

Dudley Musier
Appellee
Nathanael Lenard Reynolds
Appellant
Officer Watson
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-7025

NATHANAEL LENARD REYNOLDS,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

CHIEF DEPUTY DUDLEY MUSIER; OFFICER WATSON,

Defendants – Appellees,

and

SHERIFF MICHAEL JOHNSON,

Defendant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

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

(1:15-cv-00388-MGL)

Submitted: November 18, 2016 Decided: November 23, 2016

Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Nathanael Lenard 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: 16-7025 Doc: 14 Filed: 11/23/2016 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Nathanael Lenard 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. 

The motion for preparation of a transcript at government expense 

is denied.

AFFIRMED

Appeal: 16-7025 Doc: 14 Filed: 11/23/2016 Pg: 2 of 2