Rayborn Durand v. Anthony Charles

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to remand case [1000316846-2]. Originating case number: 1:16-cv-00086-LCB-LPA. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency [1000339339]. Mailed to: Rayborn J. Durand. [18-6364]

Appeal: 18-6364

Doc: 17

Filed: 07/31/2018

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-6364

RAYBORN J. DURAND,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
ANTHONY G. CHARLES, M.D.,
Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at
Greensboro. Loretta C. Biggs, District Judge. (1:16-cv-00086-LCB-LPA)

Submitted: July 26, 2018

Decided: July 31, 2018

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, FLOYD, Circuit Judge, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Rayborn J. Durand, Appellant Pro Se. Barrett Thomas Johnson, CRANFILL, SUMNER
& HARTZOG, LLP, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 18-6364

Doc: 17

Filed: 07/31/2018

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Rayborn J. Durand appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his
42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint. 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 Durand 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). Durand
has waived appellate review by failing to file timely objections after receiving proper
notice. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court and deny Durand’s
motion to remand.
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