Court Opinion

ID: 9365152
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-21 21:00:50.594478+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:15:43.476227
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-7109      Doc: 18         Filed: 01/20/2023     Pg: 1 of 3

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 22-7109

        JESSE JAMES COPEN, SR.,

                             Plaintiff - Appellant,

                      v.

        TRACY HARPER, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney; STATE POLICE CORPRAL
        MILLER, State Trooper; TROOPER STALLING, State Trooper; TROOPER
        MAYLE; UNKNOWN MEMBERS OF SRT TEAM, Special Response Team,

                             Defendants - Appellees.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at
        Wheeling. John Preston Bailey, District Judge. (5:22-cv-00136-JPB)

        Submitted: January 17, 2023                                       Decided: January 20, 2023

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

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Jesse James Copen, Sr., Appellant Pro Se. Chelsea Virginia Brown, BOWLES RICE, LLP,
        Morgantown, West Virginia; Michael Deering Mullins, STEPTOE & JOHNSON PLLC,
        Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellees.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-7109      Doc: 18         Filed: 01/20/2023      Pg: 2 of 3

        PER CURIAM:

               Jesse James Copen, Sr., 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 Copen 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 Copen 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.

                                                     2
USCA4 Appeal: 22-7109         Doc: 18    Filed: 01/20/2023   Pg: 3 of 3

              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

                                                  3