USCA4 Appeal: 24-6250 Doc: 8 Filed: 06/28/2024 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 24-6250

DEANDRE LASHUN FULLER, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. SPARTANBURG COUNTY; SPARTANBURG COUNTY DETENTION CENTER; SERGEANT BISHOP, in his individual and official capacity; SHERIFF CHUCK WRIGHT, in his individual and official capacity, Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. Timothy M. Cain, Chief District Judge. (6:24-cv-00451-TMC)

Submitted: June 25, 2024 Decided: June 28, 2024

Before RICHARDSON and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Deandre Lashun Fuller, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 24-6250 Doc: 8 Filed: 06/28/2024 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM: Deandre Lashun Fuller appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C § 1983 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 Fuller 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). Fuller 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