Case Name: L. RUTHER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Randall ANDERSON; Vicki Anderson; State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-12-17
Citations: 624 F. App'x 112
Docket Number: No. 15-1963
Parties: L. RUTHER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Randall ANDERSON; Vicki Anderson; State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before GREGORY and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 624
Pages: 112–113

Head Matter:
L. RUTHER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Randall ANDERSON; Vicki Anderson; State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 15-1963.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Dec. 15, 2015.
Decided: Dec. 17, 2015.
L. Ruther, Appellant Pro Se.
Before GREGORY and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
L. Ruther seeks to appeal the district court's orders dismissing his civil action and denying Ruther's motion to recuse the magistrate judge. The district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2012). In both orders, the magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Ruther 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, 106 S.Ct. 466, 88 L.Ed.2d 435 (1985). Ruther has waived appellate review by failing to file objections after receiving proper notice. Accordingly, we deny Ruther's motions to proceed in forma pauperis and to stay, and dismiss the appeal.
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.
DISMISSED.