Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-15-01357/USCOURTS-ca4-15-01357-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
3-S Network Inc.
Appellee
Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company
Appellee
Sharon Presley
Appellee
Iftikhar H. Saiyed
Appellant

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-1357

IFTIKHAR H. SAIYED,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

SHARON PRESLEY; NATIONWIDE MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY; 3-S 

NETWORK INC.,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern 

District of West Virginia, at Bluefield. David A. Faber, Senior 

District Judge. (1:14-cv-22165)

Submitted: August 20, 2015 Decided: August 24, 2015

Before DUNCAN, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Iftikhar H. Saiyed, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-1357 Doc: 12 Filed: 08/24/2015 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Iftikhar H. Saiyed appeals the district court’s order 

dismissing his civil action against Defendants. 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 the action be dismissed and advised Saiyed that failure to 

file timely specific objections to this recommendation would 

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). Saiyed has waived appellate 

review by failing to file objections after receiving proper 

notice. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. 

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: 15-1357 Doc: 12 Filed: 08/24/2015 Pg: 2 of 2