Ray Blanchard v. US

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 2:14-cv-00058-JPB-JES. Copies to all parties and the district court. [999703307]. Mailed to: Ray Blanchard. [15-7248]

Appeal: 15-7248

Doc: 10

Filed: 11/20/2015

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-7248

RAY A. BLANCHARD,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia, at Elkins.
John Preston Bailey,
District Judge. (2:14-cv-00058-JPB-JES)

Submitted:

November 17, 2015

Decided:

November 20, 2015

Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ray A. Blanchard, Appellant Pro Se.
Erin K. Reisenweber,
Assistant United States Attorney, Martinsburg, West Virginia,
for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-7248

Doc: 10

Filed: 11/20/2015

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Ray A. Blanchard seeks to appeal the district court’s order
accepting

the

recommendation

of

the

magistrate

judge

and

dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2671 (2012) complaint under 28 U.S.C.
§§ 1915(e)(2)(B), 1915A(b) (2012).
this

case

to

a

magistrate

§ 636(b)(1)(B) (2012).
relief

be

denied

and

The district court referred

judge

pursuant

to

28

U.S.C.

The magistrate judge recommended that
advised

Blanchard

that

failure

to

file

timely 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.

Wright v.

Collins,

see

766

F.2d

Thomas v.

Arn,

appellate

review

474
by

841,

845-46

U.S.

140

failing

receiving proper notice.

(4th

Cir.

(1985).
to

1985);

Blanchard

timely

file

has

objections

also
waived
after

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