Ray Blanchard v. US, No. 15-7248 (4th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-7248 RAY A. BLANCHARD, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Elkins. John Preston Bailey, District Judge. (2:14-cv-00058-JPB-JES) Submitted: November 17, 2015 Decided: November 20, 2015 Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ray A. Blanchard, Appellant Pro Se. Erin K. Reisenweber, Assistant United States Attorney, Martinsburg, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Ray A. Blanchard seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2671 (2012) complaint under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B), 1915A(b) (2012). this case to a magistrate § 636(b)(1)(B) (2012). relief be denied and The district court referred judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. The magistrate judge recommended that advised Blanchard that failure to file timely 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. Wright v. Collins, see 766 F.2d Thomas v. Arn, appellate review 474 by 841, 845-46 U.S. 140 failing receiving proper notice. (4th Cir. (1985). to 1985); Blanchard timely file has objections also waived after 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
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
