Court Opinion

ID: 9784989
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-30 21:00:31.910309+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:42:28.583225
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-1484      Doc: 9         Filed: 08/29/2023    Pg: 1 of 3

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 23-1484

        WILLIAM STRASBURG,

                             Plaintiff - Appellant,

                      v.

        HARDY COUNTY, WV; MOOREFIELD POLICE DEPARTMENT,

                             Defendants - Appellees.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at
        Elkins. Thomas S. Kleeh, Chief District Judge. (2:22-cv-00006-TSK-MJA)

        Submitted: August 24, 2023                                        Decided: August 29, 2023

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

        Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        William Strasburg, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-1484       Doc: 9          Filed: 08/29/2023      Pg: 2 of 3

        PER CURIAM:

               William Strasburg appeals the district court’s order adopting the magistrate judge’s

        recommendations and denying relief on Strasburg’s civil complaint as well as on various

        supplemental motions and notices he filed in conjunction with his complaint. The district

        court referred Strasburg’s case and the supplemental motions to a magistrate judge

        pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) on three separate occasions. Accordingly, in three

        separate reports, the magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised

        Strasburg that failure to file timely, specific objections to the recommendations could

        waive appellate review of a district court order based upon them. Strasburg filed objections

        only to the first report. In its order, the district court found that because Strasburg’s

        objections to the first report were not sufficiently specific and he had filed no objections to

        the second and third reports, it was under no obligation to conduct a de novo review of the

        magistrate judge’s findings.

               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). Strasburg received proper notice of the

        magistrate judge’s first and second report but has not preserved appellate review as to those

        reports. Thus, we affirm the district court’s order adopting the first and second reports. As

        to the third report, it is unclear from the record whether Strasburg received proper notice

        of this report and his obligation to file specific objections to it to preserve appellate review.

                                                       2
USCA4 Appeal: 23-1484         Doc: 9      Filed: 08/29/2023      Pg: 3 of 3

        Accordingly, we vacate the order to the extent it adopts the third report, denies any of

        Strasburg’s motions regarding the third report and dismisses his complaints without

        prejudice. We remand to the district court to address the apparent return of the third report

        as undeliverable and any impact such return might have on Strasburg’s preservation of

        appellate review as to that report. We deny Strasburg’s motion to compel responses to

        discovery and for sanctions.

               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