Court Opinion

ID: 9963203
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-24 19:00:56.324849+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:24:42.441659
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-7152        Doc: 10         Filed: 04/23/2024   Pg: 1 of 3

                                              UNPUBLISHED

                                 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                     FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                                 No. 23-7152

        MICHAEL ISAIAH ANDERSON, JR.,

                              Plaintiff - Appellant,

                      v.

        MAJOR BROWN, Florence County Detention Center; CAPTAIN PATTON,
        Florence County Detention Center; C. NEAL, Sergeant Florence County Detention
        Center,

                              Defendants - Appellees.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
        Greenville. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior District Judge. (6:23-cv-03018-HMH)

        Submitted:         March 19, 2024                                     Decided: April 23, 2024

        Before WILKINSON, WYNN, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

        Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Michael Isaiah Anderson, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-7152       Doc: 10         Filed: 04/23/2024      Pg: 2 of 3

        PER CURIAM:

               Michael Isaiah Anderson, Jr., 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 because Anderson did not allege that any individual defendant acted with a

        sufficiently culpable state of mind and because some of the relief he sought—replacement

        of the facility’s plumbing and water testing—was not relief that the district court could

        award. Anderson timely filed objections, but the district court determined such objections

        merely restated his claims and were therefore insufficiently specific to warrant de novo

        review. Thus, after reviewing the magistrate judge’s recommendation for only clear error,

        the district court adopted the magistrate judge’s recommendation and dismissed

        Anderson’s claims. Anderson timely appealed.

               We review the sufficiency of objections to a magistrate judge’s recommendations

        de novo. Elijah v. Dunbar, 66 F.4th 454, 461 (4th Cir. 2023). “To trigger de novo review,

        an objecting 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.’” Id. at 460 (quoting United States v. Midgette, 478 F.3d 616, 622 (4th Cir.

        2007)).

               Here, although the district court was correct in observing that Anderson’s objections

        largely restated his claims, we made clear in Elijah that, especially given our obligation to

        construe pro se filings liberally, objections which merely restate claims are “sufficiently

        specific because [they] ‘alert[] the district court that [the litigant] believed the magistrate

                                                      2
USCA4 Appeal: 23-7152       Doc: 10         Filed: 04/23/2024      Pg: 3 of 3

        judge erred in recommending dismissal of those claims.’” Id. (quoting Martin v. Duffy, 858

        F.3d 239, 246 (4th Cir. 2017)). Moreover, Anderson stated in his objections that “[t]he

        Administration have to be aware of what going on so that deliberating depriving me of

        life.” E.R. 103 (errors uncorrected). Construed liberally, this statement was Anderson’s

        attempt to alert the district court to his belief that the defendants acted with a sufficiently

        culpable state of mind. Thus, Anderson sufficiently alerted the district court that he

        disagreed generally with the magistrate judge’s recommendation to dismiss his complaint

        and specifically with the magistrate judge’s conclusions regarding the sufficiency of his

        mental state allegations.

              Accordingly, Anderson’s objections were sufficiently sufficient to warrant de novo

        review of the portions of the magistrate judge’s order to which he objected. We therefore

        vacate the district court’s order and remand for de novo review.

              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.

                                                                       VACATED AND REMANDED

                                                      3