Court Opinion

ID: 9902181
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-23 22:00:31.40503+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:21:46.822066
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6744      Doc: 20         Filed: 11/22/2023    Pg: 1 of 3

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 23-6744

        THOMAS LEON TAYLOR,

                            Plaintiff - Appellant,

                     v.

        OFC DEBRA LUZ, Correctional Officer; MAJOR J. SMITH; INTERNAL
        AFFAIRS, Investigations; TONYA JAMES, Warden; HENGER, Associate Warden;
        JENNIFER MCDUFFIE, Associate Warden; CAPTAIN BROWN, Hearing Officer;
        ARMSTRONG, Counsel Substitute; HOUGH, Hearing Officer; BERGARSO,
        Lieutenant,

                            Defendants - Appellees.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock
        Hill. Terry L. Wooten, Senior District Judge. (0:22-cv-00256-TLW)

        Submitted: November 16, 2023                                Decided: November 22, 2023

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

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Thomas Leon Taylor, Appellant Pro Se. Andrew Lindemann, LINDEMANN LAW FIRM,
        P.A., Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-6744       Doc: 20         Filed: 11/22/2023      Pg: 2 of 3

        PER CURIAM:

               Thomas Leon Taylor 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 Taylor 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 Taylor 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)).

                                                      2
USCA4 Appeal: 23-6744      Doc: 20        Filed: 11/22/2023     Pg: 3 of 3

              Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. We deny Taylor’s

        motions to appoint counsel and for a temporary restraining order. 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