Court Opinion

ID: 9405659
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-28 21:01:04.802342+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:24.113551
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-1413      Doc: 13         Filed: 06/27/2023     Pg: 1 of 3

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 23-1413

        CHRISTOPHER W. LIVINGSTON,

                             Plaintiff - Appellant,

                      v.

        THE NORTH CAROLINA STATE BAR; SUSANNAH B. COX; KATHERINE E. JEAN,

                             Defendants - Appellees.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
        Wilmington. Richard E. Myers II, Chief District Judge. (7:21-cv-00115-M)

        Submitted: June 22, 2023                                          Decided: June 27, 2023

        Before HARRIS and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Affirmed in part and affirmed as modified in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Christopher Wyatt Livingston, Appellant Pro Se. David Richard Johnson, NORTH
        CAROLINA STATE BAR, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-1413      Doc: 13         Filed: 06/27/2023     Pg: 2 of 3

        PER CURIAM:

               Christopher Wyatt Livingston appeals the district court’s order adopting the

        magistrate judge’s recommendation and dismissing Livingston’s amended complaint

        against the North Carolina State Bar (“NCSB”) and two of its attorneys. The magistrate

        judge recommended that the court dismiss Livingston’s federal claims against the NCSB

        and the attorneys in their official capacities because those claims are barred by Eleventh

        Amendment immunity. The magistrate judge further recommended that the court dismiss

        Livingston’s federal claims against the attorneys in their individual capacities because the

        attorneys are entitled to prosecutorial immunity.          Finally, the magistrate judge

        recommended that the court decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Livingston’s

        state-law claims. Livingston objected, arguing that the attorneys were not functioning in a

        prosecutorial capacity. The district court overruled this objection and another objection

        that had no bearing on the magistrate judge’s recommendation, adopted the magistrate

        judge’s recommendation in full, granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss, and declined to

        exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims. We affirm in part and affirm

        as modified in part.

               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). Here, after being advised of the

        consequences of noncompliance, Livingston failed to object to the magistrate judge’s

                                                     2
USCA4 Appeal: 23-1413       Doc: 13         Filed: 06/27/2023      Pg: 3 of 3

        recommendation that the court dismiss Livingston’s federal claims against the NCSB and

        the attorneys in their official capacities as barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity. See

        Martin, 858 F.3d at 245 (“[T]o 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)). Livingston has therefore forfeited appellate review of

        the dismissal of those claims.       However, because a dismissal based on Eleventh

        Amendment immunity should be without prejudice, see Pense v. Md. Dep’t of Pub. Safety

        & Corr. Servs., 926 F.3d 97, 99, 103 (4th Cir. 2019), we affirm as modified to reflect that

        the dismissal of Livingston’s federal claims against the NCSB and the attorneys in their

        official capacities is without prejudice.

               As for the remainder of the district court’s order, we find no reversible error and

        affirm. Livingston v. N.C. State Bar, No. 7:21-cv-00115-M (E.D.N.C. Mar. 13, 2023). 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 IN PART,
                                                              AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED IN PART

                                                      3