Court Opinion

ID: 9405649
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-28 21:00:55.252806+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:24.134570
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6049      Doc: 16         Filed: 06/27/2023      Pg: 1 of 3

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                                UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 23-6049

        LAWRENCE CRAWFORD, a/k/a Johah Gabriel, a/k/a Jahjah T. Tishbite,

                             Plaintiff - Appellant,

                      v.

        WARDEN NELSON; SCDC; DIRECTOR BRYAN P. STIRLING; THE S.C.D.C
        MUSLIM CHAPLAINS; MS. FOX,

                             Defendants - Appellees.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Beaufort.
        Terry L. Wooten, Senior District Judge. (9:20-cv-02139-TLW-MHC)

        Submitted: June 22, 2023                                           Decided: June 27, 2023

        Before HARRIS and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Lawrence Crawford, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-6049       Doc: 16          Filed: 06/27/2023      Pg: 2 of 3

        PER CURIAM:

               Lawrence Crawford appeals the district court’s order dismissing his civil action.

        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 Crawford’s action be dismissed

        and advised Crawford that failure to file specific objections to the recommendation would

        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 Crawford 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; thus, 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)); see

        also Osmon v. United States, 66 F.4th 144, 146 (4th Cir. 2023) (“[A] party wishing to avail

        itself of its right to de novo review must be sufficiently specific to focus the district court’s

        attention on the factual and legal issues that are truly in dispute.” (internal quotation marks

        omitted)).

                                                       2
USCA4 Appeal: 23-6049      Doc: 16        Filed: 06/27/2023     Pg: 3 of 3

               We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment. We deny Crawford’s motion to

        supplement the appeal. 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