USCA4 Appeal: 24-6791 Doc: 18 Filed: 11/25/2025 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 24-6791

LORENZO PAYTON,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

S. HOLCOMB, Albemarle Correctional Institution, Correctional Sergeant II; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER BAKER, Albemarle Correctional Institution; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER LOWDER, Albemarle Correctional Institution,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. William L. Osteen, Jr., District Judge. (1:20-cv-00801-WO-LPA)

Submitted: March 24, 2025 Decided: November 25, 2025

Before GREGORY, RUSHING, and BERNER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Lorenzo Payton, Appellant Pro Se. Alex Ryan Williams, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 24-6791 Doc: 18 Filed: 11/25/2025 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:

Lorenzo Payton appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his

complaint. The district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to

(b)(1)(B). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and

advised Payton 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). Payton forfeited appellate review by

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

notice. Accordingly, we deny Payton’s motion to appoint counsel, and 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