Court Opinion

ID: 9391005
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-28 21:01:34.019588+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:38.838151
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-6864      Doc: 14         Filed: 04/27/2023      Pg: 1 of 3

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                                UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 22-6864

        DANIEL DRAPER,

                             Plaintiff - Appellant,

                      v.

        MS. BARNES, Warden; DR. ONAHA, Medical Doctor; MRS. RAMSEY, Medical
        Nurse,

                             Defendants - Appellees.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Beaufort.
        Timothy M. Cain, District Judge. (9:21-cv-00185-TMC)

        Submitted: April 25, 2023                                          Decided: April 27, 2023

        Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, THACKER, Circuit Judge, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit
        Judge.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Daniel Draper, Appellant Pro Se. Beth Drake, Acting United States Attorney, OFFICE OF
        THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-6864      Doc: 14         Filed: 04/27/2023      Pg: 2 of 3

        PER CURIAM:

               Daniel Draper appeals the district court’s order on remand accepting the

        recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing without prejudice Draper’s

        complaint filed pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of

        Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), for failure to exhaust his administrative remedies. The

        district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B).

        The magistrate judge recommended granting summary judgment to Defendants and

        dismissing Draper’s claims for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. The magistrate

        judge advised Draper that failure to file timely, specific objections to this recommendation

        could waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the recommendation.

        Draper did not object to the report. Thus, the district court accepted the magistrate judge’s

        recommendation and dismissed the action without prejudice.

               On appeal from that dismissal order, we concluded that Draper did not receive the

        magistrate judge’s report and recommendation before the district court issued its dismissal

        order, thus depriving Draper of his right to file objections. Accordingly, we vacated the

        district court’s dismissal order, granted Draper’s unopposed motion to remand the case to

        the district court, and remanded with instructions to serve the magistrate judge’s report and

        recommendation on Draper and to provide him with an opportunity to file objections. See

        Draper v. Barnes, No. 22-6105, 2022 WL 1153252, at *1 (4th Cir. Apr. 19, 2022).

               On remand, the district court found that Draper failed to raise specific objections to

        the magistrate judge’s report and accepted the magistrate judge’s initial recommendation.

        The timely filing of specific objections to a magistrate judge’s recommendation is

                                                     2
USCA4 Appeal: 22-6864         Doc: 14       Filed: 04/27/2023     Pg: 3 of 3

        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 Draper received proper notice and filed timely objections to the magistrate

        judge’s recommendation, he has waived 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 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

               *
                 To the extent Draper’s objections could be liberally construed as specifically
        objecting to the magistrate judge’s recommendation regarding exhaustion of administrative
        remedies, the district court properly denied relief on that basis.

                                                      3