Court Opinion

ID: 6331044
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-04-13 19:00:33.769348+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:23:09.358893
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                      No. 21-7603

JORDAN NATHANIEL MITCHELL,

                    Plaintiff - Appellant,

             v.

DISTRICT ATTORNEY; SHERIFF ROGERS,

                    Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at
Greensboro. Thomas D. Schroeder, Chief District Judge. (1:21-cv-00552-TDS-LPA)

Submitted: March 24, 2022                                         Decided: April 11, 2022

Before AGEE and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jordan Nathaniel Mitchell, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

       Jordan Nathaniel Mitchell 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 Mitchell 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). Mitchell has waived 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