Matthew Allen Taylor v. Cabell County Sheriff’s Department; Huntington Police Department

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 22-6074
MATTHEW ALLEN TAYLOR,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
CABELL COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT; HUNTINGTON POLICE
DEPARTMENT,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at
Huntington. Robert C. Chambers, District Judge. (3:21-cv-00425)
Submitted: June 28, 2022 Decided: July 1, 2022
Before NIEMEYER and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit
Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Matthew Allen Taylor, Appellant Pro Se. Drannon L. Adkins, Wendy Elizabeth Greve,
PULLIN, FOWLER, FLANAGAN, BROWN & POE, PLLC, Charleston, West Virginia;
Steven Kenneth Nord, OFFUTT NORD, PLLC, Huntington, West Virginia, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Matthew Allen Taylor appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 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 Taylor 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). Taylor 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 --