The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
25-6024•Genuine Truth Banner v. FELECIA MCKIE, Grievance Branch Chief
25-6024Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitMay 28, 2025
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 25-6024
GENUINE TRUTH BANNER,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
FELECIA MCKIE, Grievance Branch Chief,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
Greenville. Joseph Dawson, III, District Judge. (6:24-cv-06053-JD-KFM)
Submitted: May 22, 2025 Decided: May 28, 2025
Before KING, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Genuine Truth Banner, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
-- 1 of 2 --
2
PER CURIAM:
Genuine Truth Banner seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his
application to proceed in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915.∗ 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 Banner’s application be denied and advised Banner
that failure to file timely, specific objections to this recommendation would 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). Banner 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. 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
∗ “The denial by a District Judge of a motion to proceed in forma pauperis is an
appealable order.” Roberts v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for N. Dist. of Cal., 339 U.S. 844, 845 (1950).
-- 2 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.