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UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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