USCA4 Appeal: 22-7141 Doc: 11 Filed: 02/22/2023 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22-7141

PARIS LAQUISHA FUNDERBURK, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. DEPUTY JOHNSON; DEPUTY N. VINSON; DEPUTY WILLIAM BALLEW; DEPUTY JOSH GILLESPIE; MAJOR FREEMAN; CAPTAIN HAYES; CAPTAIN CODY; LIEUTENANT WILSON; LIEUTENANT DUCLOS; LIEUTENANT CUNNINGHAM; LIEUTENANT HOLLIFIELD, Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence.

Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., Senior District Judge. (4:20-cv-02903-JFA)

Submitted: February 16, 2023 Decided: February 22, 2023

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, RUSHING, Circuit Judge, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Paris Laquisha Funderburk, Appellant Pro Se. Andrew Todd Darwin, HOLCOMBE BOMAR, PA, Spartanburg, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 22-7141 Doc: 11 Filed: 02/22/2023 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM: Paris Laquisha Funderburk appeals the district court’s order denying relief on her 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 the district court deny relief and advised Funderburk that failure to file timely, 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). Funderburk 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