UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-1622

LAWRENCE VERLINE WILDER, SR.,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

LORETTA E. LYNCH, US Attorney General; WILMINGTON NC POLICE; 

FEDERAL PROBATION OFFICE; PAM THORNTON, Federal Probation 

Officer; FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDERS OFFICE; DEBRA GRAVES, 

Federal Public Defender; JAMES TODD, Federal Public 

Defender; STEPHEN GORDON, Federal Public Defender; THOMAS 

MCNAMARA, Federal Public Defender; FELICIA SARNER, Federal 

Public Defender; TOBIN LATHAN, US Attorney; DAVID MEMEGER, 

US Attorney; ROD ROSENSTEIN, US Attorney; THOMAS WALKER, US 

Attorney; JENNIFER MAY-PARKER, US Attorney; BEN DAVID, New 

Hanover County NC District Attorney; US DEPARTMENT OF 

JUSTICE; US ATTORNEY'S OFFICE; VIRGINIA STATE TROOPERS; 

MALCOLM JONES HOWARD, Federal District Judge; ROBERT B. 

JONES, Federal District Judge; LEGROME DAVIS, Federal 

District Judge; TERRENCE BOYLE, Federal District Judge; 

ELIZABETH HEY, Federal Magistrate Judge; DIANA MOTZ, Federal 

Circuit Judge; JUDGE WYNN, Federal Circuit Judge; JUDGE 

TRAXLER, Federal Circuit Chief Judge; JUDGE THACKER, Federal 

Circuit Judge; JUDGE FLOYD, Federal Circuit Judge; JUDGE 

SHEDD, Federal Circuit Judge; ANDRE DAVIS, Federal Circuit 

Judge; UNKNOWN FEDERAL AGENTS; UNKNOWN STATE AGENTS; 

PROBATION OFFICER THORNTON, Federal Probation Officer,

Defendants - Appellees.

No. 16-1623

LAWRENCE VERLINE WILDER, SR.,
2

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

WILMINGTON, NC POLICE; NEW HANOVER COUNTY, NC, SHERIFF’S 

OFFICE; FEDERAL PROBATION OFFICE; PAM THORNTON, Federal 

Probation Officer; FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDERS OFFICE; DEBRA 

GRAVES, Federal Public Defender; JAMES TODD, Federal Public 

Defender; STEPHEN GORDON, Federal Public Defender; THOMAS 

MCNAMARA, Federal Public Defender; FELICIA SARNER, Federal 

Public Defender; TOBIN LATHAN, US Attorney; DAVID MEMEGER, 

US Attorney; ROD ROSENSTEIN, US Attorney; THOMAS WALKER, US 

Attorney; JENNIFER MAY-PARKER, US Attorney; BEN DAVID, New 

Hanover County NC District Attorney; US DEPARTMENT OF 

JUSTICE; US ATTORNEY’S OFFICE; VIRGINIA STATE TROOPERS; 

MALCOLM JONES HOWARD, Federal District Judge; ROBERT B. 

JONES, Federal District Judge; LEGROME DAVIS, Federal 

District Judge; TERRENCE BOYLE, Federal District Judge; 

ELIZABETH HEY, Federal Magistrate Judge; DIANA MOTZ, Federal 

Circuit Judge; JUDGE WYNN, Federal Circuit Judge; JUDGE 

TRAXLER, Federal Circuit Chief Judge; JUDGE THACKER, Federal 

Circuit Judge; JUDGE FLOYD, Federal Circuit Judge; JUDGE 

SHEDD, Federal Circuit Judge; ANDRE DAVIS, Federal Circuit 

Judge; UNKNOWN FEDERAL AGENTS; UNKNOWN STATE AGENTS; 

PROBATION OFFICER THORNTON, Federal Probation Officer,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. Louise W. Flanagan, 

District Judge. (7:15-cv-00235-FL; 7:15-cv-00236-FL)

Submitted: October 28, 2016 Decided: November 3, 2016

Before DUNCAN, AGEE, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Lawrence Verline Wilder, Sr., Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
3

PER CURIAM:

Lawrence Verline Wilder, Sr., appeals the district court’s 

order and judgments denying relief on his civil complaints. The 

district court referred these cases 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 Wilder 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). Wilder has waived appellate 

review by failing to file objections after receiving proper 

notice. Accordingly, we affirm the judgments 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