Court Opinion

ID: 9893126
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-25 21:00:58.605908+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:52:52.213065
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6794      Doc: 21         Filed: 10/24/2023      Pg: 1 of 2

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                                UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 23-6794

        LARRY JAMES TYLER, a/k/a Larry James Tyler, #354459,

                             Plaintiff - Appellant,

                      v.

        JAMES HUDSON, Sheriff; DIANN WILKS,

                             Defendants - Appellees.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Beaufort.
        Mary G. Lewis, District Judge. (9:22-cv-01544-MGL)

        Submitted: October 19, 2023                                     Decided: October 24, 2023

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

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Larry James Tyler, Appellant Pro Se. Carmen Vaughn Ganjehsani, Caleb Martin Riser,
        RICHARSON PLOWDEN & ROBINSON, PA, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-6794       Doc: 21         Filed: 10/24/2023      Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Larry James Tyler appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment to

        defendant James Hudson on Tyler’s 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 granting summary judgment to Hudson and advised Tyler

        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 Tyler received proper notice

        and filed timely objections to the magistrate judge’s recommendation, his 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 district court’s order. 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