Court Opinion

ID: 9374765
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-23 21:00:55.215504+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:52.766294
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-7141      Doc: 11         Filed: 02/22/2023      Pg: 1 of 2

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                                UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 22-7141

        PARIS LAQUISHA FUNDERBURK,

                             Plaintiff - Appellant,

                      v.

        DEPUTY JOHNSON; DEPUTY N. VINSON; DEPUTY WILLIAM BALLEW;
        DEPUTY JOSH GILLESPIE; MAJOR FREEMAN; CAPTAIN HAYES; CAPTAIN
        CODY; LIEUTENANT WILSON; LIEUTENANT DUCLOS; LIEUTENANT
        CUNNINGHAM; LIEUTENANT HOLLIFIELD,

                             Defendants - Appellees.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence.
        Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., Senior District Judge. (4:20-cv-02903-JFA)

        Submitted: February 16, 2023                                   Decided: February 22, 2023

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

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Paris Laquisha Funderburk, Appellant Pro Se. Andrew Todd Darwin, HOLCOMBE
        BOMAR, PA, Spartanburg, South Carolina, for Appellees.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-7141         Doc: 11      Filed: 02/22/2023     Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Paris Laquisha Funderburk appeals the district court’s order denying relief on her 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 the district

        court deny relief and advised Funderburk 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). Funderburk 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