Court Opinion

ID: 3187279
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2016-03-21 19:02:54.655261+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:39:03.082233
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                        FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                              No. 15-2426

MATTHEW CABBIL,

                  Plaintiff - Appellant,

          v.

THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                  Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Aiken.   J. Michelle Childs, District Judge.
(1:14-cv-04122-JMC)

Submitted:   March 17, 2016                 Decided:   March 21, 2016

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Matthew Cabbil, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

     Matthew Cabbil seeks to appeal the district court’s order

dismissing his civil complaint without prejudice.           The district

court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2012).      The magistrate judge recommended

that relief be denied and advised Cabbil that failure to file

timely 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.              Wright v.

Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985); see also Thomas

v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985).      Cabbil has waived appellate review

by failing to file specific objections after receiving proper

notice.   Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis

and dismiss the appeal.

     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.

                                                               DISMISSED

                                   2