Otis Brandon v. Janssen Pharmaceuticals; Johnson and Johnson, Inc.

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 24-1072
OTIS BRANDON,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS; JOHNSON AND JOHNSON, INC.,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
Columbia. Richard Mark Gergel, District Judge. (3:23-cv-04197-RMG)
Submitted: May 21, 2024 Decided: May 24, 2024
Before WYNN and BENJAMIN, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Otis Brandon, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Kramer Halper, Rachel B. Sherman,
PATTERSON, BELKNAP, WEBB & TYLER, New York, New York; Amanda Sally
Kitts, NELSON MULLINS RILEY & SCARBOROUGH, LLP, Columbia, South
Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Otis Brandon appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his civil 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 relief be denied and advised
Brandon 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). Brandon has forfeited appellate review
by failing to file objections to the magistrate judge’s recommendation after receiving
proper notice. Accordingly, we grant Brandon’s motion for an extension of time to file his
informal reply brief and 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 --