UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 21-6502
ANTHONY PATTERSON, JR.,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
ARTHUR R. HOLLAND; REBECCA A. REID; RUTH A. BROWN; TRACEY E.
CLINE; ROBIN PENDERGRAFT; JED TAUB; JOHN G. BRITT, JR.; MICHAEL
GLENN HOWELL,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at
Greensboro. Catherine C. Eagles, District Judge. (1:20-cv-00931-CCE-LPA)
Submitted: September 14, 2021 Decided: September 20, 2021
Before THACKER and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit
Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Anthony Patterson, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Anthony Patterson, Jr., appeals the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 civil action. * 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 the action be dismissed
and advised Patterson that failure to file timely and 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). Patterson has waived 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
*
Although the district court dismissed Patterson’s action without prejudice, we
conclude after review of the record in light of Bing v. Brivo Sys., LLC, 959 F.3d 605,
610-12, 614-15 (4th Cir. 2020), that the dismissal is final and appealable.
2