Court Opinion

ID: 9961124
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-17 21:01:15.431902+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:20:20.693955
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 24-6030      Doc: 10         Filed: 04/16/2024    Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 24-6030

        KEITH CARTER,

                            Plaintiff - Appellant,

                     v.

        JOHN DOE, Winston-Salem police officer, in his individual capacity,

                            Defendant - Appellee.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at
        Greensboro. Catherine C. Eagles, Chief District Judge. (1:23-cv-00768-CCE-JEP)

        Submitted: April 11, 2024                                         Decided: April 16, 2024

        Before AGEE and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Keith Carter, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 24-6030      Doc: 10         Filed: 04/16/2024     Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Keith Carter appeals the district court’s order and judgment 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 Carter that failure to file timely, specific objections to this

        recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the

        recommendation. Carter did not file timely objections.

               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). Carter has forfeited appellate review by

        failing to file timely objections to the magistrate judge’s recommendation after receiving

        proper notice.

               Accordingly, we affirm the order and 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