USCA4 Appeal: 25-1266 Doc: 5 Filed: 07/28/2025 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 25-1266

BRITTANY MARIE TOMLINSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA; MICHELLE C. BALL, Clerk of Superior Court, Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (5:24-cv-00708-FL)

Submitted: July 24, 2025 Decided: July 28, 2025

Before NIEMEYER, AGEE, and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Brittany M. Tomlinson, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 25-1266 Doc: 5 Filed: 07/28/2025 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM: Brittany Marie Tomlinson appeals the district court’s order dismissing her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). The district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). The magistrate judge recommended dismissing the complaint and advised Tomlinson 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). Tomlinson has forfeited 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