UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23-1484

WILLIAM STRASBURG,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

HARDY COUNTY, WV; MOOREFIELD POLICE DEPARTMENT,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at 

Elkins. Thomas S. Kleeh, Chief District Judge. (2:22-cv-00006-TSK-MJA)

Submitted: August 24, 2023 Decided: August 29, 2023

Before QUATTLEBAUM and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit 

Judge.

Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

William Strasburg, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 23-1484 Doc: 9 Filed: 08/29/2023 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM: 

William Strasburg appeals the district court’s order adopting the magistrate judge’s 

recommendations and denying relief on Strasburg’s civil complaint as well as on various 

supplemental motions and notices he filed in conjunction with his complaint. The district 

court referred Strasburg’s case and the supplemental motions to a magistrate judge 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) on three separate occasions. Accordingly, in three 

separate reports, the magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised

Strasburg that failure to file timely, specific objections to the recommendations could 

waive appellate review of a district court order based upon them. Strasburg filed objections 

only to the first report. In its order, the district court found that because Strasburg’s 

objections to the first report were not sufficiently specific and he had filed no objections to 

the second and third reports, it was under no obligation to conduct a de novo review of the 

magistrate judge’s findings. 

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). Strasburg received proper notice of the 

magistrate judge’s first and second report but has not preserved appellate review as to those

reports. Thus, we affirm the district court’s order adopting the first and second reports. As 

to the third report, it is unclear from the record whether Strasburg received proper notice 

of this report and his obligation to file specific objections to it to preserve appellate review. 

USCA4 Appeal: 23-1484 Doc: 9 Filed: 08/29/2023 Pg: 2 of 3
3

Accordingly, we vacate the order to the extent it adopts the third report, denies any of 

Strasburg’s motions regarding the third report and dismisses his complaints without 

prejudice. We remand to the district court to address the apparent return of the third report 

as undeliverable and any impact such return might have on Strasburg’s preservation of 

appellate review as to that report. We deny Strasburg’s motion to compel responses to 

discovery and for sanctions.

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.

VACATED AND REMANDED

USCA4 Appeal: 23-1484 Doc: 9 Filed: 08/29/2023 Pg: 3 of 3