T. Terance Bryan v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Company, No. 14-1349 (4th Cir. 2014)

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-1349 T. TERANCE BRYAN, a/k/a Terrence Terell Bryan, a/k/a T. Terell Bryan, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Beaufort. Terry L. Wooten, Chief District Judge. (9:13-cv-01826-TLW) Submitted: December 15, 2014 Decided: December 19, 2014 Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. T. Terance Bryan, Appellant Pro Se. Sara Theresa Eibling, NELSON MULLINS RILEY & SCARBOROUGH, LLP, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: T. Terance Bryan appeals the district court’s orders dismissing this action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) and denying his motion for reconsideration. The district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2012). dismissal advised and The Bryan magistrate that failure judge to recommended file timely, specific objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the recommendation. The magistrate timely judge’s filing of recommendation specific is objections necessary to to a preserve appellate review of the substance of that recommendation when the parties noncompliance. have been warned of the consequences of Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Bryan has waived appellate review by failing to file objections after receiving proper notice. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. We deny the motions for stay, for intervention, and to place the case in abeyance. 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