William Strasburg v. CHIEF RIGGLEMAN, Moorefield Police

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 25-1353
WILLIAM STRASBURG,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
CHIEF RIGGLEMAN, Moorefield Police,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at
Elkins. Thomas S. Kleeh, Chief District Judge. (2:24-cv-00016-TSK-MJA)
Submitted: August 28, 2025 Decided: September 2, 2025
Before GREGORY, QUATTLEBAUM, and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
William Strasburg, Appellant Pro Se. John William Burns, GORDON REES SCULLY
MANSUKHANI, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
William Strasburg appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his civil
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
Strasburg 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). Although Strasburg received proper
notice and filed objections to the magistrate judge’s recommendation, he has forfeited
appellate review because the objections were untimely. 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 --