UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 08-2289

WESLEY EDWARD SMITH, III; LESHELL D. SMITH, 

 Plaintiffs - Appellants, 

 v. 

WASHINGTON MUTUAL BANK FA, successor to WASHINGTON MUTUAL 

HOME LOANS, successor in interest by merger to FLEET 

MORTGAGE CORPORATION other WASHINGTON MUTUAL HOME LOANS 

INCORPORATED; CTX MORTGAGE CORPORATION LLC; CENTEX HOMES 

INCORPORATED; BILL EVERETTE; CHERYL FISCHER; SAMUEL C. 

WATERS; DENNIS A. BROSNAN; REGINALD P. CORLEY; REBECCA ANNE 

ROBERTS; ANDREA K. ST AMAND; THOMAS C. HILDEBRAND, Jr.; 

ROBERT WOODS; JENNY C. HONEYCUTT; JENNIFER A. COX, 

 Defendants - Appellees. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Charleston. Margaret B. Seymour, District 

Judge. (2:08-cv-02573-MBS) 

Submitted: January 15, 2009 Decided: January 21, 2009 

Before MOTZ and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge. 

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Wesley Edward Smith, III, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
PER CURIAM: 

Plaintiffs-Appellants Wesley Edward Smith, III and 

Leshell D. Smith appeal the district court’s order dismissing 

their civil action challenging the foreclosure of their home. 

Plaintiffs asserted violations under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000), 

the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (“SCRA”), 50 App. U.S.C. 

§ 501 et seq. (2000), and South Carolina law. Their case was 

referred to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 636(b)(1)(B). The magistrate judge recommended that the 

action be summarily dismissed for failure to state a claim on 

account of Plaintiffs’ failure to attribute any state action to 

the named Defendants, to state a claim under the SCRA, and for 

lack of diversity supporting their claim under South Carolina 

law. The magistrate judge also clearly advised Plaintiffs that 

failure to file specific and timely objections to his 

recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court 

order based on the recommendation. Despite this warning, 

Plaintiffs filed only general, conclusory objections to the 

magistrate judge’s recommendation as to Plaintiffs’ failures 

concerning their SCRA and South Carolina law claims. 

Plaintiffs then filed an amended complaint adding 

allegations of violations of the Fair Housing Act (“FHA”), 42 

U.S.C. § 3601 et seq. (2000) and the Equal Credit Opportunity 

Act (“ECOA”), 15 U.S.C. § 1691 et seq. (2006). Concurring in 

2 
the magistrate judge’s determination that Plaintiffs failed to 

state a cause of action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and concluding 

that Plaintiffs’ claims under the FHA and the ECOA appeared 

untimely, that Plaintiffs failed to allege facts to show that 

the FHA claim was exhausted, and that Plaintiffs’ challenge to 

the foreclosure, having been litigated in state court, was 

barred by res judicata, the district court adopted the report 

and recommendation and dismissed Plaintiffs’ action. 

Pursuant to § 636(b)(1), a district court is required 

to conduct a de novo review of those portions of the magistrate 

judge's report to which a specific objection has been made. The 

court need not conduct de novo review, however, “when a party 

makes general and conclusory objections that do not direct the 

court to a specific error in the magistrate's proposed findings 

and recommendations.” Orpiano v. Johnson, 687 F.2d 44, 47 (4th 

Cir. 1982); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). 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 that failure to 

so object will waive appellate review. Orpiano, 687 F.3d at 47. 

 The Smiths have waived appellate review of their 

claims under the SCRA and South Carolina law by failing to 

direct the district court to specific errors in the magistrate 

judge’s report and recommendation. See Wright v. Collins, 766 

3 
4 

F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985) (failure to file specific 

objections results in waiver of appellate review of the 

substance of that recommendation when parties have been warned 

of consequences of noncompliance). As to the Smiths’ claims 

under § 1983, the FHA, and the ECOA, we have reviewed the record 

and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the 

district court’s order. Smith v. Washington Mutual Bank, FA, 

Case No. 2:08-cv-02573-MBS (D.S.C. Oct. 14, 2008). We dispense 

with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are 

adequately presented in the materials before the court and 

argument would not aid the decisional process. 

AFFIRMED