Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-24-01050/USCOURTS-ca4-24-01050-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 

---

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 24-1050

WESLEY EDWARD SMITH, III, 

Plaintiff - Appellant, 

v. 

SOUTH CAROLINA; GOVERNOR HENRY MCMASTER; ATTORNEY 

GENERAL ALAN WILSON; MAYOR JOSEPH P. RILEY, Retired; CHARLIE 

CONDON, Solicitor of South Carolina, Retired; COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL 

SECURITY; CAROLINA FRANCHISE HOLDINGS, INC. LLC; BURGER KING, 

INC.; PEPSI BOTTLING GROUP, INC.; SUPERINTENDENT CCSD 

CHARLESTON COUNTY SCHOOLS; CUMMINS ENGINE; JAMES E. 

CLYBURN, Congressman, 14th District; WENDELL GILLYARD; MARVIN 

PENDARVIS, South Carolina Legislator; BANK OF AMERICA; MILITARY 

MAGNET ACADEMY; PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN; DONALD TRUMP, Former 

President; BARACK OBAMA, Former President; GEORGE W. BUSH, Former 

President; WILLIAM CLINTON, Former President; SENATOR LINDSEY 

GRAHAM; DR. ANTHONY FAUCI, Chief Medical Physician; HILARY 

CLINTON, Former Secretary of State; ANTONY BLINKEN, Secretary of State 

Office; SENATOR MITCH MCCONNELL; NANCY PELOSI, Speaker of the 

House; KEVIN MCCARTHY, Speaker of the House; PIGGLY WIGGLY, INC.; 

LOW COUNTRY GROCERY FINANCIERS; HONORABLE JOSEPH DAWSON, 

III; EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION; DEPARTMENT 

OF LABOR, Wage Division Department; DANIEL FRANK BLANCHARD, 

District Attorney; REMAX PRO REALTY, d/b/a Centex Home and Loans, 

Defendants - Appellees. 

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

Charleston. Bruce H. Hendricks, District Judge. (2:23-cv-05320-BHH) 

USCA4 Appeal: 24-1050 Doc: 10 Filed: 03/01/2024 Pg: 1 of 3
2

Submitted: February 27, 2024 Decided: March 1, 2024

Before WILKINSON, WYNN, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges. 

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Wesley Edward Smith, III, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 

USCA4 Appeal: 24-1050 Doc: 10 Filed: 03/01/2024 Pg: 2 of 3
3

PER CURIAM: 

Wesley Edward Smith, III, appeals the district court’s order dismissing his civil 

action under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). 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 the 

action be dismissed and advised Smith that failure to file timely, specific objections to this 

recommendation would 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. 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). Smith has forfeited appellate review 

by failing to file timely objections to the magistrate judge’s recommendation after 

receiving proper notice. 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: 24-1050 Doc: 10 Filed: 03/01/2024 Pg: 3 of 3