William Strasburg v. Chief Riggleman

USCA4 Appeal: 25-1353 Doc: 13 Filed: 09/02/2025 Pg: 1 of 2 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 25-1353 WILLIAM STRASBURG, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. CHIEF RIGGLEMAN, Moorefield Police, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Elkins. Thomas S. Kleeh, Chief District Judge. (2:24-cv-00016-TSK-MJA) Submitted: August 28, 2025 Decided: September 2, 2025 Before GREGORY, QUATTLEBAUM, and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. William Strasburg, Appellant Pro Se. John William Burns, GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 25-1353 Doc: 13 Filed: 09/02/2025 Pg: 2 of 2 PER CURIAM: William Strasburg appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his civil 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 Strasburg 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). Although Strasburg received proper notice and filed objections to the magistrate judge’s recommendation, he has forfeited appellate review because the objections were untimely. 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