Court Opinion

ID: 9960726
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-16 21:00:52.103868+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:19:48.466952
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-2220      Doc: 5        Filed: 04/15/2024     Pg: 1 of 3

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 23-2220

        MCKINLEY WRIGHT, JR.,

                            Plaintiff - Appellant,

                     v.

        SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT AND WORKFORCE;
        SEFA TRANSPORTATION INC.; THE SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH
        CAROLINA; THE SOUTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS; STATE OF
        SOUTH CAROLINA ADMINISTRATIVE LAW COURT; STEVEN A. JORDAN,
        Attorney for the South Carolina Department of Employment and Workforce;
        GRANT M. MILLS, Attorney for SEFA Transportation Inc.,

                            Defendants - Appellees.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
        Columbia. Mary G. Lewis, District Judge. (3:22-cv-03973-MGL)

        Submitted: April 11, 2024                                           Decided: April 15, 2024

        Before AGEE and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        McKinley Wright, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-2220       Doc: 5         Filed: 04/15/2024      Pg: 2 of 3

        PER CURIAM:

               McKinley Wright, Jr., appeals the district court’s order dismissing his civil

        complaint without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The district court

        referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). The

        magistrate judge recommended dismissing the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction

        and advised Wright that failure to file timely, specific objections to this recommendation

        could waive appellate review of a district court order based on 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 Wright received proper notice

        and filed timely objections to the magistrate judge’s recommendation, his objections were

        not specific to the particularized legal recommendations made by the magistrate judge, so

        appellate review is foreclosed. 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: 23-2220         Doc: 5    Filed: 04/15/2024   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