Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-16-06129/USCOURTS-ca4-16-06129-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
L. Patrick Auld
Appellee
Catherine C. Eagles
Appellee
Odell Gene Golden
Appellant

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-6129

ODELL GENE GOLDEN,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

CATHERINE C. EAGLES; L. PATRICK AULD,

 Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle 

District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. William L. Osteen, 

Jr., Chief District Judge. (1:15-cv-00984-WO-JLW)

Submitted: May 18, 2016 Decided: May 23, 2016

Before SHEDD, DIAZ, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Odell Gene Golden, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-6129 Doc: 10 Filed: 05/23/2016 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Odell Gene Golden appeals the district court’s order 

denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint under 

28 U.S.C. § 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 Golden 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). Golden 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: 16-6129 Doc: 10 Filed: 05/23/2016 Pg: 2 of 2