Court Opinion

ID: 9947170
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-02 21:01:10.852781+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:25:59.872339
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-7077      Doc: 16         Filed: 03/01/2024    Pg: 1 of 2

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 23-7077

        CORVIN J. YOUNG,

                            Plaintiff - Appellant,

                     v.

        SPARTANBURG COUNTY DETENTION FACILITY; SPARTANBURG
        COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA; SHERIFF CHUCK WRIGHT, County Sheriff;
        KATHERINE M. SIEBER, Esq., Public Defender; MOLLY H. CHERRY, Federal
        Magistrate Judge; DEPUTY MEDVEDEV, Spartanburg County Sheriff’s Office,

                            Defendants - Appellees.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
        Greenville. Mary G. Lewis, District Judge. (6:23-cv-02378-MGL)

        Submitted: February 27, 2024                                      Decided: March 1, 2024

        Before WILKINSON, WYNN, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Corvin J. Young, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-7077      Doc: 16         Filed: 03/01/2024     Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Corvin Young appeals the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983

        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

        Young 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). Young 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