Court Opinion

ID: 9397905
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-26 21:01:50.116899+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:28.622434
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-7166      Doc: 12        Filed: 05/25/2023   Pg: 1 of 4

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                              UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                  FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 22-7166

        KAREEM ADULE JABBAR LEAPHART,

                            Plaintiff - Appellant,

                     v.

        DOUGLAS CURRY,

                            Defendant - Appellee,

                     and

        ROBERT MCINTYRE; JAMES GLEATON; JOHN MOORE; TODD STRANGE;
        LEXINGTON POLICE DEPARTMENT,

                            Defendants.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
        Columbia. Donald C. Coggins, Jr., District Judge. (3:21-cv-00494-DCC)

        Submitted: May 23, 2023                                        Decided: May 25, 2023

        Before AGEE, WYNN, and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-7166      Doc: 12         Filed: 05/25/2023    Pg: 2 of 4

        Kareem Adule Jabbar Leaphart, Appellant Pro Se. William Henry Davidson, II,
        DAVIDSON, WREN & DEMASTERS, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

                                                    2
USCA4 Appeal: 22-7166      Doc: 12          Filed: 05/25/2023     Pg: 3 of 4

        PER CURIAM:

               Kareem Adule Jabbar Leaphart 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 Leaphart 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 Leaphart 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

        and adopted by the district court, * 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

               *
                  The magistrate judge recommended granting summary judgment in favor of
        Appellee Douglas Curry on the grounds that Leaphart’s claims were barred by the statute
        of limitations, Curry was entitled to qualified immunity, and the action was barred by Heck
        v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994). The district court adopted the magistrate judge’s
        recommendation regarding the statute of limitations and qualified immunity, but did not
        adopt the magistrate judge’s recommendation as to Heck v. Humphrey.

                                                      3
USCA4 Appeal: 22-7166         Doc: 12        Filed: 05/25/2023      Pg: 4 of 4

        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.

               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

                                                       4