Nathanael L. Reynolds v. Sheriff John H. Bartell, Jr.; Investigator Kennedy; Officer W. Jackson, 310

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-6153
NATHANAEL L. REYNOLDS,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
SHERIFF JOHN H. BARTELL, JR.; INVESTIGATOR KENNEDY; OFFICER
W. JACKSON, #310,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence. Mary G. Lewis, District Judge.
(4:15-cv-00695-MGL)
Submitted: April 8, 2016 Decided: April 13, 2016
Before WILKINSON, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Nathanael L. Reynolds, Appellant Pro Se. Edgar Lloyd Willcox,
II, WILLCOX BUYCK & WILLIAMS, PA, Florence, South Carolina, for
Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Nathanael L. Reynolds appeals the district court’s order
denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint. 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 Reynolds 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). Reynolds has waived
appellate review by failing to file objections 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

-- 2 of 2 --