USCA4 Appeal: 24-1072 Doc: 19 Filed: 05/24/2024 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 24-1072

OTIS BRANDON, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS; JOHNSON AND JOHNSON, INC., Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Richard Mark Gergel, District Judge. (3:23-cv-04197-RMG)

Submitted: May 21, 2024 Decided: May 24, 2024

Before WYNN and BENJAMIN, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Otis Brandon, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Kramer Halper, Rachel B. Sherman, PATTERSON, BELKNAP, WEBB & TYLER, New York, New York; Amanda Sally Kitts, NELSON MULLINS RILEY & SCARBOROUGH, LLP, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 24-1072 Doc: 19 Filed: 05/24/2024 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM: Otis Brandon appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his civil complaint.

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 Brandon 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). Brandon has forfeited appellate review by failing to file objections to the magistrate judge’s recommendation after receiving proper notice. Accordingly, we grant Brandon’s motion for an extension of time to file his informal reply brief 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