Raymond Chestnut v. K. Singleton , 641 F. App'x 273 ( 2016 )


Menu:
  •                               UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 15-7257
    RAYMOND EDWARD CHESTNUT, a/k/a Snoop, a/k/a Ray,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    v.
    K. SINGLETON, Officer, individual capacity,
    Defendant - Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    South Carolina, at Aiken.    R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge.
    (1:13-cv-02250-RBH)
    Submitted:   March 17, 2016                 Decided:   March 21, 2016
    Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Raymond Edward Chestnut, Appellant Pro Se. Marshall Prince, II,
    Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for
    Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Raymond Edward Chestnut appeals the district court’s orders
    denying relief on his complaint filed pursuant to Bivens v. Six
    Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 
    403 U.S. 388
    (1971), and denying his motion to alter or amend the judgment.
    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 Chestnut
    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).                  Chestnut has waived appellate
    review      by   failing    to   file   objections     after    receiving    proper
    notice. *        Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district
    court.
    *Although Chestnut contends that he timely filed objections
    to the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, no such
    objections were docketed, and Chestnut failed to substantiate
    his claims.
    2
    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
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 15-7257

Citation Numbers: 641 F. App'x 273

Filed Date: 3/21/2016

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 1/13/2023