Derrick Allen, Sr. v. Durham Co. Detention Facility ( 2021 )


Menu:
  •                                     UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 21-1917
    DERRICK MICHAEL ALLEN, SR.,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    v.
    DURHAM CO. DETENTION FACILITY; CORRECT CARE SOLUTIONS,
    /Dental Dept.; MS. SLADE; MS. JOHNSON,
    Defendants - Appellees.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at
    Greensboro. Thomas D. Schroeder, Chief District Judge. (1:20-cv-01079-TDS-LPA)
    Submitted: December 16, 2021                                Decided: December 17, 2021
    Before WYNN and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Derrick Michael Allen, Sr., Appellant Pro Se.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Derrick Michael Allen, Sr., 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 and advised Allen 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). Allen 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
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 21-1917

Filed Date: 12/17/2021

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 12/17/2021