Raymond Edward Chestnut, a/k/a Snoop, a/k/a Ray v. K. SINGLETON, Officer, individual capacity

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-7257
RAYMOND EDWARD CHESTNUT, a/k/a Snoop, a/k/a Ray,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
K. SINGLETON, Officer, individual capacity,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Aiken. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge.
(1:13-cv-02250-RBH)
Submitted: March 17, 2016 Decided: March 21, 2016
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Raymond Edward Chestnut, Appellant Pro Se. Marshall Prince, II,
Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Raymond Edward Chestnut appeals the district court’s orders
denying relief on his complaint filed pursuant to Bivens v. Six
Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388
(1971), and denying his motion to alter or amend the judgment.
The district court referred this case to a magistrate judge
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2012). The magistrate
judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Chestnut
that failure to file timely 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. Wright v.
Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985); see also Thomas
v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Chestnut has waived appellate
review by failing to file objections after receiving proper
notice.* Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district
court.
* Although Chestnut contends that he timely filed objections
to the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, no such
objections were docketed, and Chestnut failed to substantiate
his claims.

-- 2 of 3 --

3
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

-- 3 of 3 --