USCA4 Appeal: 24-6604 Doc: 10 Filed: 10/25/2024 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 24-6604

MICHAEL BREYAN, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. ALL EMPLOYEES/ROY E. COX III; SC DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS DIVISION OF POLICE; MCCORMICK, Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Bruce H. Hendricks, District Judge. (2:24-cv-00975-BHH)

Submitted: October 22, 2024 Decided: October 25, 2024

Before KING and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael Breyan, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 24-6604 Doc: 10 Filed: 10/25/2024 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM: Michael Breyan appeals the district court’s order adopting the magistrate judge’s recommendation to dismiss Breyan’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the informal brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b); see also, Jackson v. Lightsey, 775 F.3d 170, 177 (4th Cir. 2014) (“The informal brief is an important document; under Fourth Circuit rules, our review is limited to issues preserved in that brief.”). Further, 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).

Limiting our review to the issues raised in Breyan’s informal brief, and to the extent Breyan specifically objected to the magistrate judge’s recommendations, we find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. Breyan v. All Employees/Roy E. Cox III, No. 2:24-cv-00975-BHH (D.S.C. June 7, 2024). 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