Odell Golden v. Catherine Eagle

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:15-cv-00984-WO-JLW. Copies to all parties and the district court. [999829798]. Mailed to: Odell Golden. [16-6129]

Appeal: 16-6129

Doc: 10

Filed: 05/23/2016

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-6129

ODELL GENE GOLDEN,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
CATHERINE C. EAGLES; L. PATRICK AULD,
Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro.
William L. Osteen,
Jr., Chief District Judge. (1:15-cv-00984-WO-JLW)

Submitted:

May 18, 2016

Decided:

May 23, 2016

Before SHEDD, DIAZ, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Odell Gene Golden, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-6129

Doc: 10

Filed: 05/23/2016

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Odell

Gene

Golden

appeals

the

district

court’s

order

denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint under
28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) (2012).

The district court referred this

case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B)
(2012).

The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied

and advised Golden 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, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985); see also Thomas
v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985).

Golden has waived appellate review

by failing to file objections 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

2