USCA4 Appeal: 24-6335 Doc: 15 Filed: 07/30/2024 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 24-6335

MICHAEL ANTHONY BREYAN, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. ALL EMPLOYEES OF COLUMBIA CARE CENTER, Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Bruce H. Hendricks, District Judge. (2:23-cv-04847-BHH)

Submitted: July 25, 2024 Decided: July 30, 2024

Before GREGORY, HARRIS, and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael Breyan, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 24-6335 Doc: 15 Filed: 07/30/2024 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM: Michael Anthony Breyan appeals the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint without further leave to amend. 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 Breyan 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). Breyan has forfeited 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

∗ To the extent Breyan’s “motion for bank transaction and appeal to probate court” and letter requesting release could be construed as objections, Breyan’s claims in those documents were not related to the magistrate judge’s findings.