Court Opinion

ID: 4299635
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2018-07-31 19:00:23.265211+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:24:22.844374
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                      No. 18-6364

RAYBORN J. DURAND,

                    Plaintiff - Appellant,

             v.

ANTHONY G. CHARLES, M.D.,

                    Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at
Greensboro. Loretta C. Biggs, District Judge. (1:16-cv-00086-LCB-LPA)

Submitted: July 26, 2018                                          Decided: July 31, 2018

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, FLOYD, Circuit Judge, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Rayborn J. Durand, Appellant Pro Se. Barrett Thomas Johnson, CRANFILL, SUMNER
& HARTZOG, LLP, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

      Rayborn J. Durand appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his

42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint. The district court referred this case to a magistrate

judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2012). The magistrate judge recommended

that relief be denied and advised Durand 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 (1985). Durand

has waived appellate review by failing to file timely objections after receiving proper

notice. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court and deny Durand’s

motion to remand.

      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