Opinion
23-6049
06-27-2023
LAWRENCE CRAWFORD, a/k/a Johah Gabriel, a/k/a Jahjah T. Tishbite, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. WARDEN NELSON; SCDC; DIRECTOR BRYAN P. STIRLING; THE S.C.D.C MUSLIM CHAPLAINS; MS. FOX, Defendants-Appellees.
Lawrence Crawford, Appellant Pro Se.
UNPUBLISHED
Submitted: June 22, 2023
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Beaufort. Terry L. Wooten, Senior District Judge. (9:20-cv-02139-TLW-MHC)
Lawrence Crawford, Appellant Pro Se.
Before HARRIS and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM
Lawrence Crawford appeals the district court's order dismissing his civil 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 Crawford's action be dismissed and advised Crawford that failure to file specific objections to the recommendation would 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 Crawford 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; thus, 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)); see also Osmon v. United States, 66 F.4th 144, 146 (4th Cir. 2023) ("[A] party wishing to avail itself of its right to de novo review must be sufficiently specific to focus the district court's attention on the factual and legal issues that are truly in dispute." (internal quotation marks omitted)).
We therefore affirm the district court's judgment. We deny Crawford's motion to supplement the appeal. 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