Court Opinion

ID: 9381452
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-22 21:01:04.058648+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:32.649267
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-7318      Doc: 9        Filed: 03/21/2023     Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 22-7318

        VINCENT JEROME BOSEMAN,

                            Plaintiff - Appellant,

                     v.

        ANNE SPEARS WALSH; JOHN MEADORS; TAV SWARAT; BRIAN
        PETRANO; J. MARK HAYES, III,

                            Defendants - Appellees.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
        Columbia. Terry L. Wooten, Senior District Judge. (3:22-cv-01482-TLW)

        Submitted: March 16, 2023                                         Decided: March 21, 2023

        Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Vincent Jerome Boseman, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-7318         Doc: 9     Filed: 03/21/2023     Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Vincent Jerome Boseman appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42

        U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. The district court referred this case to a magistrate judge

        pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be

        denied and advised Boseman that failure to file timely, specific 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. Martin v. Duffy, 858

        F.3d 239, 245 (4th Cir. 2017); Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 846-47 (4th Cir. 1985); see

        also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 154-55 (1985). Boseman has forfeited appellate review

        by failing to file objections to the magistrate judge’s recommendation 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

                                                    2