USCA4 Appeal: 24-1519 Doc: 10 Filed: 11/13/2024 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 24-1519

THOMAS C. JACOBI ALLEN,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Jacquelyn Denise Austin, District Judge. (3:24-cv-01325-JDA)

Submitted: November 4, 2024 Decided: November 13, 2024

Before WYNN, HARRIS, and BERNER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Thomas C. Jacobi Allen, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 24-1519 Doc: 10 Filed: 11/13/2024 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:

Thomas C. Jacobi Allen appeals the district court’s order accepting the

recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing Allen’s civil action, brought

pursuant to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act,

,

without prejudice and without issuance and service of process. The district court referred

the pretrial matters to a magistrate judge pursuant to

(b)(1). The magistrate

judge recommended that the case be summarily dismissed as frivolous and advised Allen

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). Allen has forfeited appellate review by

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

notice. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. Allen v. United States, No. 3:24-

cv-01325-JDA (D.S.C. May 23, 2024). We deny Allen’s motions for default judgment and

for other forms of relief. 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