U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, 2015

Dennis Temple v. James Singleton

Dennis Temple v. James Singleton
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Decided November 20, 2015 · Shedd, Duncan, Diaz
622 F. App'x 291

Dennis Temple v. James Singleton

Opinion

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Dennis Maurice Temple appeals from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) civil rights action. The distinct court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2012). The magistrate judge recommended that the complaint be dismissed and advised Temple that failure to file timely and specific objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court judgment 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 noneomplianee. United States v. Benton, 523 F.3d 424, 428 (4th Cir. 2008) (holding that a “general objection” to a magistrate judge’s finding is insufficient to preserve a claim for appellate review); Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th *292 Cir. 2005) (“We have long held that the Federal Magistrates Act cannot be interpreted to permit a party to ignore his right to file objections with the district court without imperiling his right to raise the objections in the circuit court of appeals.” (internal quotation marks, alterations, and ellipsis omitted)); Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 846 (4th Cir. 1985) (“[W]e hold that a pro se litigant must receive fair notification of the consequences of failure to object to a magistrate’s report before such a procedural default will result in waiver of the right of appeal.”). Temple has waived appellate review of the district court’s judgment by filing nonspecific objections to the magistrate judge’s recommendation after receiving proper notice. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment.

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.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.