UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-7207
RAYMOND EDWARD CHESTNUT,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
RORY THOMPSON, Correctional Officer; T. MCGIRT, Correctional
Officer, individual and in their official capacities; LEROY
JONES; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendants – Appellees,
and
LARRY JONES, Lieutenant,
Defendant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Aiken. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge.
(1:13-cv-01870-RBH)
Submitted: November 20, 2014 Decided: November 25, 2014
Before KING and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Raymond Edward Chestnut, Appellant Pro Se. Marshall Prince, II,
Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for
Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
Raymond Edward Chestnut appeals the district court’s
order denying relief on his complaint filed pursuant to Bivens
v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403
U.S. 388 (1971). 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.
*
Chestnut contends that the district court improperly
denied his motion for an extension of time to file objections to
the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. We conclude
that the district court did not abuse its discretion. Fed. R.
Civ. P. 6(b).
3
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
4