Charles E. McClinton v. Walden University

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-1247

CHARLES EDWARD MCCLINTON,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

WALDEN UNIVERSITY; GREGORY HICKMAN; JOANN REGAN; WILLIAM
BARKLEY,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Columbia. Margaret B. Seymour, Senior
District Judge. (3:13-cv-00942-MBS)

Submitted: July 24, 2014 Decided: August 14, 2014

Before FLOYD and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Charles Edward McClinton, Appellant Pro Se. Mark Edwin
Grantham, Atlanta, Georgia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

Charles Edward McClinton appeals the district court’s

order denying relief without prejudice on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983

(2012) complaint. 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 McClinton that failure to timely file 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. Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th

Cir. 1985); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985).

McClinton has waived appellate review by failing to file

specific objections after receiving proper notice. Accordingly,

we deny Appellees’ motion to dismiss the appeal and 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