Bruce v. Bank of Am., 091321 FED4, 21-1108

Docket Nº21-1108
Opinion JudgePER CURIAM.
Party NameNELSON L. BRUCE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., a/k/a Bank of America; CARRINGTON MORTGAGE SERVICES LLC; EXPERIAN INFORMATION SOLUTIONS, INC., Defendants-Appellees.
AttorneyNelson L. Bruce, Appellant Pro Se.
Judge PanelBefore MOTZ, KING, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Case DateSeptember 13, 2021
CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals, United States Court of Appeals (4th Circuit)

NELSON L. BRUCE, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., a/k/a Bank of America; CARRINGTON MORTGAGE SERVICES LLC; EXPERIAN INFORMATION SOLUTIONS, INC., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 21-1108

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit

September 13, 2021

UNPUBLISHED

Submitted: September 9, 2021

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Bruce H. Hendricks, District Judge. (2:20-cv-03778-BHH)

Nelson L. Bruce, Appellant Pro Se.

Before MOTZ, KING, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM.

Nelson L. Bruce appeals the district court's order dismissing his civil complaint without prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). The district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). The magistrate judge recommended that the complaint be dismissed and advised Bruce 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). Bruce has waived appellate review by failing to file objections to the magistrate judge's recommendation after receiving proper notice. In addition, we discern no abuse of discretion in the district court's decision to deny Bruce's motion to extend the deadline for filing objections. See Carefirst of Md., Inc. v. Carefirst Pregnancy Ctrs., Inc., 334 F.3d 390, 396 (4th Cir. 2003) (providing standard of review).

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.

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT