BRYANT v. US DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION FBI ATF (2019)

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Anthony G. BRYANT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. US DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION; Federal Bureau of Investigation, FBI; Alcohol, Firearms, Tobacco and Explosives, ATF; Drug Enforcement Administration, Defendants-Appellees,
Attorney General of the United States; US Marshals, Defendants. Anthony G. Bryant, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. United States Department of the Interior; United States Marshal; Attorney General of the United States, Defendants-Appellees,
United States Attorney for the District of South Carolina, Defendant. Anthony G. Bryant, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. United States Marshal; Federal Trade Commission; Attorney General of the United States; United States Attorney for the District of South Carolina, Defendants-Appellees.
Anthony G. Bryant, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA; Attorney General of the United States; US Attorney for the District of South Carolina; Internal Revenue Service, Defendants-Appellees.
Anthony G. Bryant, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Internal Revenue Service; United States Department of Housing & Urban Development; United States Attorney for the District of South Carolina; Attorney General of the United States, Defendants-Appellees.
Anthony G. Bryant, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. US Secret Service; US Postal Service; Attorney General of the United States; US Attorney for the District of South Carolina, Defendants-Appellees.
Anthony G. Bryant, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Federal Communications Commission, FCC; Social Security Administration; Department of Justice; Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Defendants-Appellees.
Anthony G. Bryant, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. US Department of Transportation; Homeland Security; Attorney General of the United States; US Attorney for the District of South Carolina, Defendants Appellees.
Anthony G. Bryant, Plaintiff-Appellant, Bryant Group Inc, Plaintiff, v. Internal Revenue Service; Beth Drake, U.S. Attorney for the District of South Carolina; United States Department of Housing & Urban Development; Attorney General of the United States, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 18-2264, No. 18-2265, No. 18-2266, No. 18-2267, No. 18-2268, No. 18-2270, No. 18-2271, No. 18-2337, No. 18-2373

Decided: April 10, 2019

Before NIEMEYER, KEENAN, and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges.

Anthony G. Bryant, Appellant Pro Se.

In these consolidated appeals, Anthony G. Bryant seeks to appeal the district court's orders dismissing his civil complaints against a variety of federal agencies, entities, and officials. The court referred the cases to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2012). The magistrate judge recommended that the complaints be dismissed and advised Bryant that failure to timely file specific objections to each recommendation could waive appellate review of the district court's orders based upon such recommendations. 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, 106 S.Ct. 466, 88 L.Ed.2d 435 (1985). “In order to preserve for appeal an issue in a magistrate judge's report, a party must object to the finding or recommendation on that issue with sufficient specificity so as reasonably to alert the district court of the true ground for the objection.” Martin v. Duffy, 858 F.3d 239, 245 (4th Cir. 2017) (internal quotation marks omitted), cert. denied, ––– U.S. ––––, 138 S.Ct. 738, 199 L.Ed.2d 605 (2018).

Bryant has waived appellate review of all of the district court's orders by failing to file specific objections after receiving proper notice in each case. Accordingly, we affirm the district court's judgments. 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

PER CURIAM:

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Welcome to FindLaw's Cases & Codes

A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.

Go to Learn About the Law