UN PUBLISHED
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 SOUT H 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

.

Appeal s 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 un published 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

recom mendation could waive appellate review of the district court’s order s based upon
such recommendation s
. The timely filing of specific objections to a magistrate judge’s recommendation is necessary to preserve appellate review of the substance of that

recom mendation 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.” Ma rtin 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 prop er notice in each case . Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment s
. 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 p rocess.
AFFIRMED