Thomas C. Jacobi Allen v. United States of America

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 24-1519
THOMAS C. JACOBI ALLEN,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
Columbia. Jacquelyn Denise Austin, District Judge. (3:24-cv-01325-JDA)
Submitted: November 4, 2024 Decided: November 13, 2024
Before WYNN, HARRIS, and BERNER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Thomas C. Jacobi Allen, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Thomas C. Jacobi Allen appeals the district court’s order accepting the
recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing Allen’s civil action, brought
pursuant to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. §§ 1400-1482,
without prejudice and without issuance and service of process. The district court referred
the pretrial matters to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The magistrate
judge recommended that the case be summarily dismissed as frivolous and advised Allen
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). Allen has forfeited appellate review by
failing to file objections to the magistrate judge’s recommendation after receiving proper
notice. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. Allen v. United States, No. 3:24-
cv-01325-JDA (D.S.C. May 23, 2024). We deny Allen’s motions for default judgment and
for other forms of relief. 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 --