Lorenzo Payton v. S. Holcomb

USCA4 Appeal: 24-6791 Doc: 18 Filed: 11/25/2025 Pg: 1 of 2 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 24-6791 LORENZO PAYTON, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. S. HOLCOMB, Albemarle Correctional Institution, Correctional Sergeant II; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER BAKER, Albemarle Correctional Institution; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER LOWDER, Albemarle Correctional Institution, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. William L. Osteen, Jr., District Judge. (1:20-cv-00801-WO-LPA) Submitted: March 24, 2025 Decided: November 25, 2025 Before GREGORY, RUSHING, and BERNER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Lorenzo Payton, Appellant Pro Se. Alex Ryan Williams, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 24-6791 Doc: 18 Filed: 11/25/2025 Pg: 2 of 2 PER CURIAM: Lorenzo Payton appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. 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 relief be denied and advised Payton 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). Payton forfeited appellate review by failing to file objections to the magistrate judge’s recommendation after receiving proper notice. Accordingly, we deny Payton’s motion to appoint counsel, and 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