Troy Worsley v. Eddie Anderson

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 22-7407 Doc: 11 Filed: 06/26/2023 Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22-7407

TROY WORSLEY,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

EDDIE ANDERSON, In his individual capacity; ALICIA WILSON, In her individual capacity; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Clarksburg. Thomas S. Kleeh, Chief District Judge. (1:19-cv-00213-TSK)

Submitted: June 22, 2023 Decided: June 26, 2023

Before HARRIS and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Troy Worsley, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 22-7407 Doc: 11 Filed: 06/26/2023 Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:

Troy Worsley appeals the district court’s orders denying relief on Worsley’s

complaint filed pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of

Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971) (“dismissal order”), and denying Worsley’s self-styled

motion for relief from the dismissal order (“motion for relief”). ∗ 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 in Worsley’s Bivens action and advised Worsley that

failure to file timely, specific objections to the recommendations would waive appellate

review of a district court order based upon the 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. 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). Although Worsley received proper

notice and an extension of time to file objections—and ultimately filed objections to the

magistrate judge’s recommendations—he has forfeited appellate review because the

objections were untimely. We find that the district court did not abuse its discretion in

denying the motion for relief. See Fed. Trade Comm’n v. Pukke, 53 F.4th 80, 106 (4th Cir.

2022) (reviewing district court’s order denying Rule 60(b) motion for abuse of discretion

∗ As the motion for relief was filed within 28 days of the dismissal order, we have jurisdiction over both orders. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4)(A)(vi).

2 USCA4 Appeal: 22-7407 Doc: 11 Filed: 06/26/2023 Pg: 3 of 3

and noting that disposing of such a motion “is a matter which lies largely within the

discretion of the trial judge and [that] his action is not lightly to be disturbed by an appellate

court” (internal quotation marks omitted)). Accordingly, we affirm the appealed-from

orders. Worsley v. Anderson, No. 1:19-cv-00213-TSK (N.D.W. Va. Mar. 31, 2021; Sept.

22, 2022).

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