Court Opinion

ID: 9392799
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-06 21:00:46.222025+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:48.950156
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 21-7243      Doc: 15         Filed: 05/05/2023      Pg: 1 of 3

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                                UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 21-7243

        BILLY D. MORRISON,

                             Plaintiff - Appellant,

                      v.

        JOHN VANDERMOSTEN; TROY ERVIN; A. WATKINS; G. WATT; MELINDA
        MCELHANNON; SAMANTHA YATES; KIM OLZEWSKI,

                             Defendants - Appellees.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence.
        J. Michelle Childs, District Judge. (4:19-cv-01926-JMC)

        Submitted: March 22, 2023                                              Decided: May 5, 2023

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

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Billy D. Morrison, Appellant Pro Se. P. Christopher Smith, Jr., CLARKSON WALSH
        TERRELL & COULTER, PA, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellees.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 21-7243      Doc: 15         Filed: 05/05/2023      Pg: 2 of 3

        PER CURIAM:

               Billy D. Morrison, a South Carolina inmate, appeals the district court’s order

        granting Defendants summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 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 relief be denied and advised Morrison 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 Morrison 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)).

               In his informal brief, Morrison also challenges the magistrate judge’s earlier order

        denying Morrison’s motions for leave to file a proposed second amended complaint and

        for the appointment of counsel. Upon review of the record, we conclude that the denial of

                                                     2
USCA4 Appeal: 21-7243      Doc: 15         Filed: 05/05/2023    Pg: 3 of 3

        leave to file a second amended complaint was well within the exercise of the magistrate

        judge’s discretion. See Wilkins v. Montgomery, 751 F.3d 214, 220 (4th Cir. 2014)

        (providing standard of review). As to the denial of appointment of counsel, the magistrate

        judge observed that Morrison’s pleadings and exhibits demonstrated his ability to litigate

        this case pro se.      Morrison v. Vandermosten, No. 4:19-cv-01926-JMC (D.S.C.

        Mar. 19, 2021). This ruling was not an abuse of discretion. See Whisenant v. Yuam, 739

        F.2d 160, 163 (4th Cir. 1984), abrogated on other grounds by Mallard v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for

        the S. Dist. of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296 (1989).

               Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. 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