Anthony Jones v. Estate of David Aylor

USCA4 Appeal: 25-6884 Doc: 9 Filed: 01/29/2026 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 25-6884

ANTHONY JONES, a/k/a Anthony Alan Jones, Jr., Plaintiff - Appellant, v. ESTATE OF DAVID AYLOR, Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Timothy M. Cain, Chief District Judge. (2:25-cv-07591-TMC)

Submitted: January 22, 2026 Decided: January 29, 2026

Before AGEE, RICHARDSON, and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Anthony Jones, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 25-6884 Doc: 9 Filed: 01/29/2026 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM: Anthony Jones appeals the district court’s order dismissing his amended 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint without prejudice and without issuance and service of process. * 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 Jones 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). Jones has waived appellate review by failing to file objections to the magistrate judge’s recommendation after receiving proper notice. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment.

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

* The district court’s order is final and appealable because the court did not grant Jones another opportunity to amend his complaint. See Britt v. DeJoy, 45 F.4th 790, 796 (4th Cir. 2022) (en banc) (order).