Michael Anthony Breyan v. All Employees of Columbia Care Center

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 24-6335
MICHAEL ANTHONY BREYAN,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
ALL EMPLOYEES OF COLUMBIA CARE CENTER,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
Charleston. Bruce H. Hendricks, District Judge. (2:23-cv-04847-BHH)
Submitted: July 25, 2024 Decided: July 30, 2024
Before GREGORY, HARRIS, and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 Anthony Breyan appeals the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 complaint without further leave to amend. 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 Breyan 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). Breyan 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
∗ To the extent Breyan’s “motion for bank transaction and appeal to probate court”
and letter requesting release could be construed as objections, Breyan’s claims in those
documents were not related to the magistrate judge’s findings.

-- 2 of 2 --