Bryant Young v. West Virginia University

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

Bryant Young v. West Virginia University

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 23-2018 Doc: 16 Filed: 02/29/2024 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23-2018

BRYANT KEITH YOUNG,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

WEST VIRGINIA UNIVERSITY; WEST VIRGINIA UNIVERSITY BOARD OF GOVERNORS; DR. KATHLEEN O’HEARN RYAN,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Clarksburg. Thomas S. Kleeh, Chief District Judge. (1:23-cv-00029-TSK-MJA)

Submitted: February 27, 2024 Decided: February 29, 2024

Before WILKINSON, WYNN, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Bryant Keith Young, Appellant Pro Se. Seth Patrick Hayes, JACKSON KELLY PLLC, Morgantown, West Virginia; Shawn Angus Morgan, STEPTOE LLP, Bridgeport, West Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 23-2018 Doc: 16 Filed: 02/29/2024 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:

Bryant Keith Young appeals the district court’s order dismissing his civil action.

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

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 waived 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

2

Reference

Status
Unpublished