Gary L. Swanson v. Littler Mendelson P.C.

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 20-1218

GARY L. SWANSON,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

LITTLER MENDELSON P.C.,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
Wilmington. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (7:19-cv-00245-FL)

Submitted: June 16, 2020 Decided: June 18, 2020

Before MOTZ and KING, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Gary L. Swanson, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

PER CURIAM:

Gary L. Swanson appeals the district court’s order dismissing his civil action under
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (2018). The district court referred this case to a magistrate judge
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2018). The magistrate judge recommended
dismissing the action as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) and advised Swanson
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). Swanson 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