Paul Cleveland Thompson, Jr., appeals from the district courts entry on March 6, 2020, of final judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights action,
*
challenging several rulings by the district court and the magistrate judge. Appellees Lisa Tolbert, Cynthia Hall, Darlene Wells, and Lisa Shaffer (“the moving Appellees”) move to dismiss the appeal in part, arguing that Thompson has not shown good cause for why he should be permitted to reinstate against them an appeal this court previously dismissed. We dismiss the appeal in part and affirm in part.
Thompson previously appealed from the district courts March 30, 2019, order granting the motion of the moving Appellees and an additional Defendant for partial final judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b) following entry of the courts March 29, 2018, order dismissing Thompsons constitutional claims against them for failure to state a claim, declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Thompsons state-law claims against them under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), and dismissing those claims for lack of jurisdiction. This court dismissed Thompsons prior appeal for lack of prosecution. Thompson seeks appellate review here of the March 29 order. Once a case is dismissed for want of prosecution, however, this court may grant reinstatement only for good cause shown. 4th Cir. R. 45. Thompson fails to explain his noncompliance with the courts order in his prior appeal requiring that he file an informal brief raising issues for review and either pay the filing fee for the appeal or move for leave to proceed without prepayment of fees. Because Thompson has not shown good cause, we grant the motion to dismiss the appeal in part and dismiss the appeal as to the moving Appellees.
Thompson challenges the magistrate judges February 6, 2019, order denying his motion to appoint counsel, conduct during a May 1, 2019, status hearing, and the April 17, 2019, notice of the May 1 hearing. Thompson, however, did not file objections to the order, hearing notice, or the magistrate judges rulings during the hearing. Because Thompson “failed to object to the magistrate judges ruling[s and notice], [he has] waived [his] right to any further review” of them. Kitlinski v. U.S. Dept of Justice, 994 F.3d 224, 233 (4th Cir. 2021) (internal quotation marks omitted); see Wells v. Shriners Hosp., 109 F.3d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1997) (“In this circuit, as in others, a party may file objections ․ or he may not, as he chooses, but he shall do so if he wishes further consideration.” (internal quotation marks omitted)).
Thompson also seeks review of: the district courts three March 29, 2018, orders dismissing some of his § 1983 claims for failure to state a claim, declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his state-law claims, and denying motions to strike and to dismiss the complaint for failure to prosecute; the courts two April 1, 2018, orders—which were amended on April 25, 2018—granting in part and denying in part the dismissal and summary judgment motions filed by various Defendants; the courts March 30, 2019, order granting in part and denying in part summary judgment to various Defendants; the courts May 30, 2019, order denying Thompsons request for appointment of counsel; the courts notices given for the June 19 and July 19, 2019, status hearings; and the courts March 6, 2020, order granting partial summary judgment to Defendants and overruling Thompsons objections to the July 19 status hearing and notice. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error by the district court. Accordingly, we affirm the district courts orders for the reasons stated, Thompson v. Clarke, No. 7:17-cv-00010-NKM-JCH (W.D. Va. Mar. 29, 2018; Apr. 1 & 25, 2018; Mar. 30, 2019; May 30, 2019; Mar. 6, 2020), and affirm the district courts implicit rejection of Thompsons objections to the June 19 status hearing and notice based on his failure to proffer any argument explaining how or why these matters were reversibly erroneous or how he was prejudiced by them.
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.
DISMISSED IN PART, AFFIRMED IN PART
FOOTNOTES
FOOTNOTE
. We conclude after review of the record in light of Affinity Living Grp., LLC v. StarStone Specialty Ins. Co., 959 F.3d 634, 639 (4th Cir. 2020), and Bing v. Brivo Sys., LLC, 959 F.3d 605, 610-12, 614-15 (4th Cir. 2020), cert. denied, ––– U.S. ––––, 141 S. Ct. 1376, 209 L.Ed.2d 122 (2021), that we have jurisdiction to review this appeal following the district courts dismissal without prejudice of Defendant Lt. D. Wells and dismissals without prejudice of Thompsons state-law claims.
PER CURIAM:
Dismissed in part, affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.