Court Opinion

ID: 9951387
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-15 21:00:44.890131+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:39:54.598464
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-1627      Doc: 14         Filed: 03/14/2024    Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 23-1627

        KUMAR NAHARAJA,

                            Plaintiff - Appellant,

                     v.

        THOMAS KENNETH KOCH, individual, an employee of Medical University of
        South Carolina; THOMAS GREGORY COONEY, Portland VA Medical Center;
        CARTER DAVIDSON WRAY, individual, a member of OHSU Practice Plan;
        ERIKA LEE FINANGER, individual, a member of OHSU Practice Plan; DONALD
        E. GIRARD; PATRICK BRUNETT; JOSEPH PINTER; DANIEL GIBBS; JEFF
        KRAAKEVIK; JASON CORYELL; DANA BRANER; STEPHEN A. BACK;
        BARRY RUSSMAN; FRANCES BIAGIOLI; COLIN ROBERTS; MICHELE
        MASS; CYNTHIA FERRELL; SUE SIMMONS,

                            Defendants - Appellees.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
        Charleston. Richard Mark Gergel, District Judge. (2:23-cv-00100-RMG)

        Submitted: March 12, 2024                                         Decided: March 14, 2024

        Before GREGORY, RICHARDSON, and BENJAMIN, Circuit Judges.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Kumar Naharaja, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-1627         Doc: 14        Filed: 03/14/2024      Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Kumar Naharaja appeals the district court’s order dismissing Naharaja’s complaint

        for failure to prosecute, failure to comply with the court’s order, and failure to state a claim.

        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

        Naharaja 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).

               Naharaja has forfeited 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