SWANSON v. HARTFORD CARRIER INSURANCE COMPANY (2020)

Gary L. Swanson appeals the district court's orders dismissing his civil action under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (2018) and denying his motion to reopen the case. The district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2018). The magistrate judge recommended dismissing the action as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) and advised Swanson 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, 106 S.Ct. 466, 88 L.Ed.2d 435 (1985). Swanson has waived appellate review by failing to file objections to the magistrate judge's recommendation after receiving proper notice. Moreover, we discern no abuse of discretion in the district court's order denying Swanson's motion to reopen the case. See Robinson v. Wix Filtration Corp., 599 F.3d 403, 407 (4th Cir. 2010) (articulating standard of review for postjudgment motions under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e)). 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

PER CURIAM:

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.