Court Opinion

ID: 9375228
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-25 21:00:39.156208+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:56.908019
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-7123      Doc: 9        Filed: 02/24/2023     Pg: 1 of 3

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 22-7123

        KHAMMESHERMA SMITH,

                            Plaintiff - Appellant,

                     v.

        M. LAWRENCE, Director of South Carolina Department of Corrections, in official
        capacity; J. RICHBURG, Administrative Coordinator, South Carolina Department
        of Corrections, in official capacity; OFFICER MIXON, Police Officer, South
        Carolina Department of Corrections, in official capacity,

                            Defendants - Appellees.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
        Greenville. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior District Judge. (6:22-cv-01433-HMH)

        Submitted: February 21, 2023                                 Decided: February 24, 2023

        Before NIEMEYER and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Khammesherma Smith, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-7123      Doc: 9         Filed: 02/24/2023      Pg: 2 of 3

        PER CURIAM:

               Khammesherma Smith 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 Smith 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 Smith received proper notice

        and filed timely objections to the magistrate judge’s recommendation, he has forfeited

        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

               *
                 To the extent Smith’s objections could be liberally construed as specifically
        objecting to the magistrate judge’s recommendation regarding interference with
        grievances, the district court properly denied relief on those claims. See Adams v. Rice, 40
        F.3d 72, 75 (4th Cir. 1994).

                                                     2
USCA4 Appeal: 22-7123      Doc: 9        Filed: 02/24/2023     Pg: 3 of 3

        alert the district court of the true ground for the objection” (internal quotation marks

        omitted)).

              Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. 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