Jimmy-Joe Cooley v. Gary Martin, Jr.

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

Jimmy-Joe Cooley v. Gary Martin, Jr.

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 22-1670 Doc: 13 Filed: 11/16/2022 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22-1670

JIMMY-JOE COOLEY,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

GARY L. MARTIN, JR.,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Mary G. Lewis, District Judge. (3:21-cv-02739-MGL)

Submitted: October 28, 2022 Decided: November 16, 2022

Before AGEE and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jimmy-Joe Cooley, Appellant Pro Se. H. Thomas Morgan, Jr., Camden, South Carolina, Austin Tyler Reed, SMITH ROBINSON HOLLER DUBOSE & MORGAN, LLC, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 22-1670 Doc: 13 Filed: 11/16/2022 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:

Jimmy-Joe Cooley appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his

42 U.S.C. § 1983

complaint. 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 Cooley that failure to file timely, specific objections to this recommendation could

waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the recommendation. Cooley

did not file objections.

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). Cooley 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

2

Reference

Status
Unpublished