USCA4 Appeal: 24-6595 Doc: 14 Filed: 10/10/2024 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 24-6595

CORVIN J. YOUNG,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

SPARTANBURG COUNTY DETENTION CENTER; SPARTANBURG COUNTY, SC; SHERIFF CHUCK WRIGHT, County Sheriff; BEVERLY D. JONES, Assistant Public Defender; MOLLY H. CHERRY, Federal Magistrate Court Judge; BRITTNEY N. HAZEL, Assistant Prosecutor (Solicitor),

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Aiken. Mary G. Lewis, District Judge. (1:23-cv-05206-MGL)

Submitted: October 7, 2024 Decided: October 10, 2024

Before THACKER and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Corvin J. Young, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 24-6595 Doc: 14 Filed: 10/10/2024 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:

Corvin J. Young appeals the district court’s order dismissing his civil complaint

alleging violations of his constitutional rights. The district court referred this case to a

magistrate judge pursuant to

(b)(1)(B). The magistrate judge

recommended that this case be dismissed and advised Young 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,

(4th Cir. 2017); Wright v. Collins,

(4th Cir. 1985); see

also Thomas v. Arn,

(1985). Young has forfeited appellate review

by failing to file objections to the magistrate judge’s recommendation after receiving

proper notice. Accordingly, we deny Young’s motion for appointment of counsel and

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