UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-2264

ANTHONY G. BRYANT,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

US DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION; FEDERAL BUREAU OF 

INVESTIGATION, FBI; ALCOHOL, FIREARMS, TOBACCO AND 

EXPLOSIVES, ATF; DRUG ENFORCEMENT ADMINISTRATION,

 Defendants - Appellees,

and

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES; US MARSHALS,

 Defendants.

No. 18-2265

ANTHONY G. BRYANT,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR; UNITED STATES 

MARSHAL; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES,

 Defendants - Appellees,
2

and

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA,

 Defendant.

No. 18-2266

ANTHONY G. BRYANT,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

UNITED STATES MARSHAL; FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION; 

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES; UNITED STATES 

ATTORNEY FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA,

 Defendants - Appellees.

No. 18-2267

ANTHONY G. BRYANT,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, EPA; ATTORNEY GENERAL 

OF THE UNITED STATES; US ATTORNEY FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH 

CAROLINA; INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE,

 Defendants - Appellees.
3

No. 18-2268

ANTHONY G. BRYANT,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE; UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF 

HOUSING & URBAN DEVELOPMENT; UNITED STATES ATTORNEY FOR 

THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE 

UNITED STATES,

 Defendants - Appellees.

No. 18-2270

ANTHONY G. BRYANT,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

US SECRET SERVICE; US POSTAL SERVICE; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF 

THE UNITED STATES; US ATTORNEY FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH 

CAROLINA,

 Defendants - Appellees.

No. 18-2271

ANTHONY G. BRYANT,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,
4

v.

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION, FCC; SOCIAL SECURITY 

ADMINISTRATION; DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE; FEDERAL DEPOSIT 

INSURANCE CORPORATION,

 Defendants - Appellees.

No. 18-2337

ANTHONY G. BRYANT,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

US DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION; HOMELAND SECURITY; 

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES; US ATTORNEY FOR 

THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA,

 Defendants - Appellees.

No. 18-2373

ANTHONY G. BRYANT,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

and

BRYANT GROUP INC,

 

 Plaintiff,

v.
5

INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE; BETH DRAKE, U.S. Attorney for the 

District of South Carolina; UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING & 

URBAN DEVELOPMENT; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED 

STATES,

 Defendants - Appellees.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at 

Charleston. Margaret B. Seymour, Senior District Judge. (2:18-cv-02217-MBS;

2:18-cv-02593-MBS; 2:18-cv-02582-MBS; 2:18-cv-01436-MBS; 2:18-cv-00606-MBS;

2:18-cv-02738-MBS; 2:18-cv-02467-MBS; 2:18-cv-02159-MBS; 2:18-cv-00607-MBS)

Submitted: March 29, 2019 Decided: April 10, 2019

Before NIEMEYER, KEENAN, and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Anthony G. Bryant, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
6

PER CURIAM:

In these consolidated appeals, Anthony G. Bryant seeks to appeal the district 

court’s orders dismissing his civil complaints against a variety of federal agencies,

entities, and officials. The court referred the cases to a magistrate judge pursuant to 

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2012). The magistrate judge recommended that the complaints 

be dismissed and advised Bryant that failure to timely file specific objections to each 

recommendation could waive appellate review of the district court’s orders based upon 

such recommendations. 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). “In order to preserve for appeal an issue in a 

magistrate judge’s report, a party must object to the finding or recommendation on that 

issue with sufficient specificity so as reasonably to alert the district court of the true 

ground for the objection.” Martin v. Duffy, 858 F.3d 239, 245 (4th Cir. 2017) (internal 

quotation marks omitted), cert. denied, 138 S. Ct. 738 (2018). 

Bryant has waived appellate review of all of the district court’s orders by failing to 

file specific objections after receiving proper notice in each case. Accordingly, we affirm 

the district court’s judgments. 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