Antwain Porter v. Major Hinson

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 25-6856

ANTWAIN PORTER,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

MAJOR HINSON; CAPTAIN WHITT; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER HARRIS;
CORRECTIONAL OFFICER SALLY,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at
Greensboro. Catherine C. Eagles, Chief District Judge. (1:25-cv -00756-CCE-JLW)

Submitted: July 23, 2026 Decided: July 27, 2026

Before WYNN and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Antwain Porter, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

PER CURIAM:
Antwain Porter seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 complaint. Porter also seeks the appointment of counsel. The district court referred
this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). The magistrate judge
recommended dismissing the complaint because Porter’s complaint was illegible and was
not double-spaced, as required by local rules. The magistrate judge advised Porter that
failure to file timely, specific objections to the 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). Porter has forfeited appellate review by
failing to file objections to the magistrate judge’s recommendation after receiving proper
notice. Accordingly, we deny Porter’s motion to appoint counsel and dismiss the appeal.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
adequately presented in the materials before this court and would not aid the decisional
process.
DISMISSED