UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-1622
LAWRENCE VERLINE WILDER, SR.,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, US Attorney General; WILMINGTON NC POLICE;
FEDERAL PROBATION OFFICE; PAM THORNTON, Federal Probation
Officer; FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDERS OFFICE; DEBRA GRAVES,
Federal Public Defender; JAMES TODD, Federal Public
Defender; STEPHEN GORDON, Federal Public Defender; THOMAS
MCNAMARA, Federal Public Defender; FELICIA SARNER, Federal
Public Defender; TOBIN LATHAN, US Attorney; DAVID MEMEGER,
US Attorney; ROD ROSENSTEIN, US Attorney; THOMAS WALKER, US
Attorney; JENNIFER MAY-PARKER, US Attorney; BEN DAVID, New
Hanover County NC District Attorney; US DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE; US ATTORNEY'S OFFICE; VIRGINIA STATE TROOPERS;
MALCOLM JONES HOWARD, Federal District Judge; ROBERT B.
JONES, Federal District Judge; LEGROME DAVIS, Federal
District Judge; TERRENCE BOYLE, Federal District Judge;
ELIZABETH HEY, Federal Magistrate Judge; DIANA MOTZ, Federal
Circuit Judge; JUDGE WYNN, Federal Circuit Judge; JUDGE
TRAXLER, Federal Circuit Chief Judge; JUDGE THACKER, Federal
Circuit Judge; JUDGE FLOYD, Federal Circuit Judge; JUDGE
SHEDD, Federal Circuit Judge; ANDRE DAVIS, Federal Circuit
Judge; UNKNOWN FEDERAL AGENTS; UNKNOWN STATE AGENTS;
PROBATION OFFICER THORNTON, Federal Probation Officer,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 16-1623
LAWRENCE VERLINE WILDER, SR.,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
WILMINGTON, NC POLICE; NEW HANOVER COUNTY, NC, SHERIFF’S
OFFICE; FEDERAL PROBATION OFFICE; PAM THORNTON, Federal
Probation Officer; FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDERS OFFICE; DEBRA
GRAVES, Federal Public Defender; JAMES TODD, Federal Public
Defender; STEPHEN GORDON, Federal Public Defender; THOMAS
MCNAMARA, Federal Public Defender; FELICIA SARNER, Federal
Public Defender; TOBIN LATHAN, US Attorney; DAVID MEMEGER,
US Attorney; ROD ROSENSTEIN, US Attorney; THOMAS WALKER, US
Attorney; JENNIFER MAY-PARKER, US Attorney; BEN DAVID, New
Hanover County NC District Attorney; US DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE; US ATTORNEY’S OFFICE; VIRGINIA STATE TROOPERS;
MALCOLM JONES HOWARD, Federal District Judge; ROBERT B.
JONES, Federal District Judge; LEGROME DAVIS, Federal
District Judge; TERRENCE BOYLE, Federal District Judge;
ELIZABETH HEY, Federal Magistrate Judge; DIANA MOTZ, Federal
Circuit Judge; JUDGE WYNN, Federal Circuit Judge; JUDGE
TRAXLER, Federal Circuit Chief Judge; JUDGE THACKER, Federal
Circuit Judge; JUDGE FLOYD, Federal Circuit Judge; JUDGE
SHEDD, Federal Circuit Judge; ANDRE DAVIS, Federal Circuit
Judge; UNKNOWN FEDERAL AGENTS; UNKNOWN STATE AGENTS;
PROBATION OFFICER THORNTON, Federal Probation Officer,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. Louise W. Flanagan,
District Judge. (7:15-cv-00235-FL; 7:15-cv-00236-FL)
Submitted: October 28, 2016 Decided: November 3, 2016
Before DUNCAN, AGEE, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Lawrence Verline Wilder, Sr., Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
Lawrence Verline Wilder, Sr., appeals the district court’s
order and judgments denying relief on his civil complaints. The
district court referred these cases 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 Wilder 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). Wilder has waived appellate
review by failing to file objections after receiving proper
notice. Accordingly, we affirm the judgments 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
3