Court Opinion

ID: 9365156
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-21 21:00:53.595093+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:15:43.475137
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-7024      Doc: 10         Filed: 01/20/2023      Pg: 1 of 3

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                                UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                                No. 22-7024

        JAMES E. ROSE, JR.,

                             Petitioner - Appellant,

                      v.

        RANDY DEMORY,

                             Respondent - Appellee.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence.
        Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior District Judge. (4:22-cv-01774-HMH)

        Submitted: January 17, 2023                                       Decided: January 20, 2023

        Before KING and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        James E. Rose, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-7024       Doc: 10         Filed: 01/20/2023       Pg: 2 of 3

        PER CURIAM:

               James E. Rose, Jr., a state pretrial detainee, seeks to appeal the district court’s order

        accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on Rose’s 28

        U.S.C. § 2241 petition. 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 and

        advised Rose 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 Rose 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 deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We

        deny Rose’s motion to consolidate. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and

                                                       2
USCA4 Appeal: 22-7024      Doc: 10        Filed: 01/20/2023     Pg: 3 of 3

        legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument

        would not aid the decisional process.

                                                                                     DISMISSED

                                                    3