Michael Breyan v. All Employees/roy E. Cox Iii; Sc Department of Corrections Division of Police; McCormick

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 24-6604
MICHAEL BREYAN,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
ALL EMPLOYEES/ROY E. COX III; SC DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
DIVISION OF POLICE; MCCORMICK,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
Charleston. Bruce H. Hendricks, District Judge. (2:24-cv-00975-BHH)
Submitted: October 22, 2024 Decided: October 25, 2024
Before KING and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Michael Breyan, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Michael Breyan appeals the district court’s order adopting the magistrate judge’s
recommendation to dismiss Breyan’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. On appeal, we confine our
review to the issues raised in the informal brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b); see also, Jackson v.
Lightsey, 775 F.3d 170, 177 (4th Cir. 2014) (“The informal brief is an important document;
under Fourth Circuit rules, our review is limited to issues preserved in that brief.”). Further,
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).
Limiting our review to the issues raised in Breyan’s informal brief, and to the extent
Breyan specifically objected to the magistrate judge’s recommendations, we find no
reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. Breyan v. All
Employees/Roy E. Cox III, No. 2:24-cv-00975-BHH (D.S.C. June 7, 2024). 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 --