Court Opinion

ID: 9778340
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 21:00:51.729753+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:18:07.089990
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-1143     Doc: 7        Filed: 08/28/2023   Pg: 1 of 3

                                           UNPUBLISHED

                             UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                 FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                             No. 23-1143

        SARIA WALKER,

                           Plaintiff - Appellant,

                     v.

        UNITED STATES FEDERAL GOVERNMENT; HOUSE OF RAEFORD FARMS,
        INCORPORATED; PRISMA HEALTH; SAINT FRANCES DOWNTOWN;
        SAINT FRANCES EASTSIDE; THE CAROLINA CENTER FOR BEHAVIORAL
        HEALTH; SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES;
        GREER POLICE DEPARTMENT; GREENVILLE POLICE DEPARTMENT;
        GREENVILLE COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Clerk of Court;
        GREENLINK; GREENVILLE LIBRARY SYSTEM, Downtown and Anderson
        Road Branches,

                           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-02946-HMH)

        Submitted: August 24, 2023                                  Decided: August 28, 2023

        Before QUATTLEBAUM and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit
        Judge.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-1143      Doc: 7         Filed: 08/28/2023    Pg: 2 of 3

        Saria Walker, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

                                                    2
USCA4 Appeal: 23-1143       Doc: 7         Filed: 08/28/2023      Pg: 3 of 3

        PER CURIAM:

               Saria Walker appeals the district court’s order dismissing her 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 the complaint be dismissed and advised Walker

        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 Walker received proper notice

        and filed timely objections to the magistrate judge’s recommendation, her 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)).

               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