UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 20-1216
GARY L. SWANSON,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
THE HARTFORD CARRIER INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
Wilmington. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (7:19-cv-00242-FL)
Submitted: June 16, 2020 Decided: June 18, 2020
Before MOTZ and KING, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Gary L. Swanson, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Gary L. Swanson appeals the district court’s orders dismissing his civil action under
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (2018) and denying his motion to reopen the case. The district
court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2018).
The magistrate judge recommended dismissing the action as frivolous under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) and advised Swanson 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). Swanson has waived appellate review
by failing to file objections to the magistrate judge’s recommendation after receiving
proper notice. Moreover, we discern no abuse of discretion in the district court’s order
denying Swanson’s motion to reopen the case. See Robinson v. Wix Filtration Corp., 599
F.3d 403, 407 (4th Cir. 2010) (articulating standard of review for postjudgment motions
under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e)). 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