Court Opinion

ID: 9375229
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-25 21:00:39.733845+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:57.056218
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-7071      Doc: 11         Filed: 02/24/2023    Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 22-7071

        KHAMMESHERMA SMITH,

                            Plaintiff - Appellant,

                     v.

        ELAINE COOKE, Sumter County Public Defender,

                            Defendant - Appellee.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
        Columbia. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior District Judge. (3:22-cv-02136-HMH)

        Submitted: February 21, 2023                                 Decided: February 24, 2023

        Before NIEMEYER and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Khammesherma Smith, Appellant Pro Se

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-7071      Doc: 11         Filed: 02/24/2023      Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Khammesherma Smith appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 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 Smith 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 Smith 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 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