Derrick Allen, Sr. v. Durham County Magistrate Office ( 2022 )

USCA4 Appeal: 22-1088 Doc: 7 Filed: 07/28/2022 Pg: 1 of 2
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 22-1088
DERRICK MICHAEL ALLEN, SR.,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
DURHAM COUNTY MAGISTRATE OFFICE; SETH KENDL; DURHAM
COUNTY POLICE DEPARTMENT; OFFICER D. BARTLETT; DURHAM
DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE; DURHAM COUNTY JAIL; K.
HEMPSTEAD; JUDGE DORETTIA WALKER,
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-00090-TDS-LPA)
Submitted: July 26, 2022 Decided: July 28, 2022
Before MOTZ, KING, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Derrick Michael Allen, Sr., Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-1088 Doc: 7 Filed: 07/28/2022 Pg: 2 of 2
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 that relief be
denied 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