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UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 28 U.S.C. § 636(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, 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). 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