Court Opinion

ID: 4568279
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2020-09-22 22:34:13.092836+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:25:02.810732
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                        UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                            FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                       No. 20-6732

ADRIAN MCCRAY, a/k/a Adrian Miscell McCray,

                     Plaintiff - Appellant,

              v.

WARDEN SCOTT LEWIS; SGT. BUTLER; WARDEN CARTLEDGE;
DIRECTOR BRIAN STERLING,

                     Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence.
Timothy M. Cain, District Judge. (4:19-cv-00151-TMC)

Submitted: August 25, 2020                                        Decided: August 28, 2020

Before KING and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Adrian Miscell McCray, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

       Adrian McCray 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 recommended dismissing the complaint for failure

to prosecute and advised McCray 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). McCray 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