Paris Laquisha Funderburk v. Deputy Johnson

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 22-7141
PARIS LAQUISHA FUNDERBURK,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
DEPUTY JOHNSON; DEPUTY N. VINSON; DEPUTY WILLIAM BALLEW;
DEPUTY JOSH GILLESPIE; MAJOR FREEMAN; CAPTAIN HAYES; CAPTAIN
CODY; LIEUTENANT WILSON; LIEUTENANT DUCLOS; LIEUTENANT
CUNNINGHAM; LIEUTENANT HOLLIFIELD,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence.
Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., Senior District Judge. (4:20-cv-02903-JFA)
Submitted: February 16, 2023 Decided: February 22, 2023
Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, RUSHING, Circuit Judge, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit
Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Paris Laquisha Funderburk, Appellant Pro Se. Andrew Todd Darwin, HOLCOMBE
BOMAR, PA, Spartanburg, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Paris Laquisha Funderburk appeals the district court’s order denying relief on her 42
U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. 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 the district
court deny relief and advised Funderburk 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). Funderburk has waived appellate review
by failing to file objections to the magistrate judge’s recommendation 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 --