Keith Carter v. John Doe, No. 24-6030 (4th Cir. 2024)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 24-6030 KEITH CARTER, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. JOHN DOE, Winston-Salem police officer, in his individual capacity, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Catherine C. Eagles, Chief District Judge. (1:23-cv-00768-CCE-JEP) Submitted: April 11, 2024 Decided: April 16, 2024 Before AGEE and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Keith Carter, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Keith Carter appeals the district court’s order and judgment denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 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 Carter that failure to file timely, specific objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the recommendation. Carter did not file timely objections. 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). Carter has forfeited appellate review by failing to file timely objections to the magistrate judge’s recommendation after receiving proper notice. Accordingly, we affirm the order and 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.