Court Opinion

ID: 9905149
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-28 21:01:22.241073+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:22:04.242060
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-1940      Doc: 6         Filed: 11/27/2023    Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 23-1940

        SARIA WALKER,

                            Plaintiff - Appellant,

                     v.

        GREENVILLE COUNTY CLERK OF COURT; THIRTEENTH CIRCUIT
        SOLICITOR’S OFFICE,

                            Defendants - Appellees.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
        Greenville. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior District Judge. (6:23-cv-03544-HMH)

        Submitted: November 21, 2023                                Decided: November 27, 2023

        Before WILKINSON and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit
        Judge.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Saria Walker, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-1940       Doc: 6         Filed: 11/27/2023      Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Saria Walker appeals the district court’s order dismissing her 42 U.S.C. § 1983

        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 relief be denied 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

                                                      2