Maurice Edward Thompson, sui juris v. S. Wilshire, of the Oak Hill Police Department, individually

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 26-6382
MAURICE EDWARD THOMPSON, sui juris,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
S. WILSHIRE, of the Oak Hill Police Department, individually, and in their official
capacity,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at
Charleston. Joseph R. Goodwin, District Judge. (2:24-cv-00268)
Submitted: May 28, 2026 Decided: June 2, 2026
Before WYNN, QUATTLEBAUM, and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Maurice Edward Thompson, Appellant Pro Se. Thad Andrew Bowyer, Charleston, West
Virginia, Chip Edward Williams, STEPTOE & JOHNSON, PLLC, Beckley, West
Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Maurice Edward Thompson appeals the district court’s order dismissing his second
amended 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 relief
be denied and advised Thompson 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). Thompson has forfeited 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 --