Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-19-02055/USCOURTS-ca4-19-02055-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 470
Nature of Suit: Civil (Rico)
Cause of Action: 

---

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-2055

ORTAGUS DEMETRICE BENNETT,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

RANDY SMITH, in his individual and representative capacity as a agent for the US 

Drug Enforcement Agency; JOHN GARRETT, in his individual and representative 

capacity as a agent for the US Drug Enforcement Agency; JOHN & JANE DOES 1-

10, DEA agents in their individual and representative capacities; JAMES & JOAN 

DOE 1-10, in their individual and representative capacities Agents of the State of 

South Carolina Law Enforcement Agencies,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at 

Greenville. Timothy M. Cain, District Judge. (6:19-cv-01799-TMC)

Submitted: February 25, 2020 Decided: March 11, 2020

Before KING, DIAZ, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ortagus Demetrice Bennett, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 19-2055 Doc: 7 Filed: 03/11/2020 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Ortagus Demetrice Bennett appeals the district court’s order dismissing his civil 

action under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act; 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 

1983 (2018); Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 

388 (1971); and South Carolina state law. The district court referred this case to a 

magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2018). The magistrate judge 

recommended dismissing Bennett’s federal claims as frivolous and declining to exercise 

supplemental jurisdiction over Bennett’s state law claims.1

 The magistrate judge advised 

Bennett that failure to file timely, specific objections to the recommendation could waive 

appellate review of a district court order based upon the recommendation. The district 

court ultimately accepted the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation after finding 

that Bennett filed only general, conclusory objections.2

The timely filing of specific objections to a magistrate judge’s recommendation is 

necessary to preserve appellate review of the substance of the recommendation when the 

parties have been warned of the consequences of noncompliance. Wright v. Collins, 766 

F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Bennett

has waived appellate review by failing to file specific objections to the particularized legal 

 1 Although the magistrate judge recommended dismissal without prejudice, he noted 

that no amendment could cure the deficiencies in the complaint. See Goode v. Cent. Va. 

Legal Aid Soc’y, 807 F.3d 619, 623 (4th Cir. 2015). 

2 The district court vacated its initial order dismissing Bennett’s action for failure to 

file objections to the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation upon receiving 

Bennett’s belated objections and motion for reconsideration.

USCA4 Appeal: 19-2055 Doc: 7 Filed: 03/11/2020 Pg: 2 of 3
3

recommendations made by the magistrate judge after receiving proper notice. See United 

States v. Midgette, 478 F.3d 616, 621 (4th Cir. 2007) (holding that litigant “waives a right 

to appellate review of particular issues by failing to file timely objections specifically 

directed to those issues”). Moreover, Bennett does not challenge in his informal brief the 

district court’s finding that he failed to make specific objections, but instead merely 

reattaches his civil complaint. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b) (limiting appellate review to issues 

raised in informal brief); Jackson v. Lightsey, 775 F.3d 170, 177 (4th Cir. 2014) (same). 

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

USCA4 Appeal: 19-2055 Doc: 7 Filed: 03/11/2020 Pg: 3 of 3