Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-19-07718/USCOURTS-ca4-19-07718-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 

---

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-7718

ALFRED W. CASH,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

CHUCK WRIGHT, Sheriff, Spartanburg County; MAJOR FREEMAN; CAPTAIN 

HAYES; DEPUTY ELLIS, Male Guard/Staff; DEPUTY JOHNSON, Female 

Guard/Staff,

Defendants – Appellees,

and

JANE & JOHN DOES, Spartanburg County Jail Officers,

Defendants.

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

Greenville. Cameron McGowan Currie, Senior District Judge. (6:18-cv-02675-CMC)

Submitted: March 10, 2020 Decided: March 13, 2020

Before NIEMEYER and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

USCA4 Appeal: 19-7718 Doc: 10 Filed: 03/13/2020 Pg: 1 of 4
2

Alfred Wayne Cash, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Stephanie Holmes Burton, GIBBES & 

BURTON, LLC, Spartanburg, South Carolina, for Appellees. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 19-7718 Doc: 10 Filed: 03/13/2020 Pg: 2 of 4
3

PER CURIAM:

Alfred W. Cash appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1983 (2018) complaint. 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 that

relief be denied and advised Cash that failure to file timely, specific objections to this 

recommendation could 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). Although Cash received proper notice 

and filed timely objections to the magistrate judge’s recommendation, he has waived 

appellate review because the objections were not specific to the particularized legal 

recommendations made by the magistrate judge. See Martin, 858 F.3d at 245 (holding 

that, “to preserve for appeal an issue in a magistrate judge’s report, a party must object to 

the finding or recommendation on that issue with sufficient specificity so as reasonably to 

alert the district court of the true ground for the objection” (internal quotation marks 

omitted)). Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. 

USCA4 Appeal: 19-7718 Doc: 10 Filed: 03/13/2020 Pg: 3 of 4
4

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: 19-7718 Doc: 10 Filed: 03/13/2020 Pg: 4 of 4