Court Opinion

ID: 9391106
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-29 21:00:39.017352+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:39.468599
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6034      Doc: 9        Filed: 04/28/2023     Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 23-6034

        DEMETRIUS GLENN,

                            Plaintiff - Appellant,

                     v.

        ADAM SINCLAIR RUFFIN, Attorney; MICHAEL HENTHORNE, Attorney; MS.
        WILLIAMS, Lt SCDC; MS. MEGITT; MS. BARBER; MS. MRS. BROWN,
        Caseworker,

                            Defendants - Appellees.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
        Greenville. Donald C. Coggins, Jr., District Judge. (6:22-cv-01320-DCC)

        Submitted: April 25, 2023                                           Decided: April 28, 2023

        Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, THACKER, Circuit Judge, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit
        Judge.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Demetrius Glenn, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-6034         Doc: 9      Filed: 04/28/2023     Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Demetrius Glenn appeals the district court’s order dismissing 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 advised Glenn that his complaint was subject to

        summary dismissal for failure to state a claim and provided Glenn the opportunity to file

        an amended complaint. After Glenn failed to do so, the magistrate judge recommended

        that the district court dismiss the complaint. The magistrate judge advised Glenn 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). Glenn 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