Genuine Banner v. Felecia McKie

USCA4 Appeal: 25-6024 Doc: 9 Filed: 05/28/2025 Pg: 1 of 2 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 25-6024 GENUINE TRUTH BANNER, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. FELECIA MCKIE, Grievance Branch Chief, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. Joseph Dawson, III, District Judge. (6:24-cv-06053-JD-KFM) Submitted: May 22, 2025 Decided: May 28, 2025 Before KING, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Genuine Truth Banner, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 25-6024 Doc: 9 Filed: 05/28/2025 Pg: 2 of 2 PER CURIAM: Genuine Truth Banner seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his application to proceed in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. ∗ 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 Banner’s application be denied and advised Banner that failure to file timely, specific objections to this recommendation would 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). Banner has forfeited appellate review by failing to file objections to the magistrate judge’s recommendation after receiving proper notice. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. 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 ∗ “The denial by a District Judge of a motion to proceed in forma pauperis is an appealable order.” Roberts v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for N. Dist. of Cal., 339 U.S. 844, 845 (1950). 2