USCA4 Appeal: 23-1627 Doc: 14 Filed: 03/14/2024 Pg: 1 of 2
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 23-1627
KUMAR NAHARAJA,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
THOMAS KENNETH KOCH, individual, an employee of Medical University of
South Carolina; THOMAS GREGORY COONEY, Portland VA Medical Center;
CARTER DAVIDSON WRAY, individual, a member of OHSU Practice Plan;
ERIKA LEE FINANGER, individual, a member of OHSU Practice Plan; DONALD
E. GIRARD; PATRICK BRUNETT; JOSEPH PINTER; DANIEL GIBBS; JEFF
KRAAKEVIK; JASON CORYELL; DANA BRANER; STEPHEN A. BACK;
BARRY RUSSMAN; FRANCES BIAGIOLI; COLIN ROBERTS; MICHELE
MASS; CYNTHIA FERRELL; SUE SIMMONS,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
Charleston. Richard Mark Gergel, District Judge. (2:23-cv-00100-RMG)
Submitted: March 12, 2024 Decided: March 14, 2024
Before GREGORY, RICHARDSON, and BENJAMIN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Kumar Naharaja, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-1627 Doc: 14 Filed: 03/14/2024 Pg: 2 of 2
PER CURIAM:
Kumar Naharaja appeals the district court’s order dismissing Naharaja’s complaint
for failure to prosecute, failure to comply with the court’s order, and failure to state a claim.
The district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1)(B). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised
Naharaja 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).
Naharaja has forfeited appellate review by failing to file objections to the magistrate
judge’s recommendation after receiving proper notice. 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