Court Opinion

ID: 5119069
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2021-10-18 19:01:05.982805+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:15:44.062201
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                      No. 21-1760

STANLEY FULLER,

                    Plaintiff - Appellant,

             v.

MAGNA SEATING OF SC,

                    Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
Spartanburg. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior District Judge. (7:21-cv-01347-HMH)

Submitted: October 14, 2021                                   Decided: October 18, 2021

Before DIAZ and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Stanley Fuller, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

       Stanley Fuller appeals the district court’s order adopting the magistrate judge’s

recommendation and dismissing Fuller’s employment discrimination action. 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 Fuller 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). Fuller 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