Melvin Richard Robinson, Iii v. BRICKTON VILLAGE ASSOCIATION, INC., f/k/a Brickton Village HOA; LM PROPERTY

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 21-1057
MELVIN RICHARD ROBINSON, III,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
BRICKTON VILLAGE ASSOCIATION, INC., f/k/a Brickton Village HOA; LM
PROPERTY,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 21-1845
MELVIN RICHARD ROBINSON, III,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
BRICKTON VILLAGE ASSOCIATION, INC., f/k/a Brickton Village HOA; LM
PROPERTY,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina,
at Asheville. Martin K. Reidinger, Chief District Judge. (1:20-cv-00030-MR-WCM)
Submitted: May 26, 2022 Decided: June 28, 2022

-- 1 of 4 --

2
Before MOTZ and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Melvin Richard Robinson, III, Appellant Pro Se. Alexandra Cury, BALL BARDEN &
CURY, P.A., Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 2 of 4 --

3
PER CURIAM:
In these consolidated appeals, Melvin Richard Robinson, III, appeals the district
court’s orders denying relief in his civil action. In No. 21-1057, Robinson appeals from
the district court’s order accepting the magistrate judge’s recommendation to dismiss
Robinson’s complaint raising claims under the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 3601-3619,
3631, as well as various state law claims, and denying his motion for appointment of
counsel. In No. 21-1845, Robinson appeals the district court’s subsequent order accepting
the magistrate judge’s recommendation and denying Robinson’s postjudgment motions to
amend his complaint. We affirm.
On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the informal brief. See 4th
Cir. R. 34(b). Because Robinson’s informal briefs do not challenge the basis for the district
court’s order on appeal in No. 21-1057, he has forfeited appellate review of the court’s
order. See Jackson v. Lightsey, 775 F.3d 170, 177 (4th Cir. 2014) (“The informal brief is
an important document; under Fourth Circuit rules, our review is limited to issues
preserved in that brief.”).
Robinson’s briefs do challenge the district court’s orders denying his postjudgment
motions to amend. When recommending that the district court deny Robinson’s motions
to amend, the magistrate judge explicitly warned Robinson that he had 14 days to file
written objections and that a failure to object would waive appellate review. 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

-- 3 of 4 --

4
(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). Robinson failed to file objections to the magistrate
judge’s second recommendation. Thus, he has waived appellate review of the district
court’s order adopting the recommendation to deny his motions to amend.
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s orders. 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

-- 4 of 4 --