UNPUBLISHED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

(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,

(4th Cir. 1985); see also

Thomas v. Arn,

(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