Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-24-06820/USCOURTS-ca4-24-06820-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Eric Emmanuel Canty
Appellant
Horry County
Appellee
Horry County Sheriff
Appellee
Myrtle Beach Police Department
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 24-6820

ERIC EMMANUEL CANTY, 

Plaintiff - Appellant, 

v.

HORRY COUNTY; HORRY COUNTY SHERIFF; MYRTLE BEACH POLICE 

DEPARTMENT, 

Defendants - Appellees. 

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

Joseph Dawson, III, District Judge. (4:24-cv-01004-JD) 

Submitted: December 19, 2024 Decided: December 27, 2024

Before KING and BERNER, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge. 

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Eric Emmanuel Canty, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 

USCA4 Appeal: 24-6820 Doc: 14 Filed: 12/27/2024 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM: 

Eric Emmanuel Canty appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 

U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. 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 and advised Canty 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). Canty has forfeited appellate review by 

failing to file 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: 24-6820 Doc: 14 Filed: 12/27/2024 Pg: 2 of 2