Opinion
21-6179
03-07-2022
CLAYTON JONES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA AND ITS AGENTS, individually and officially, Defendant-Appellee.
Clayton Jones, Appellant Pro Se.
UNPUBLISHED
Submitted: February 25, 2022
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Timothy M. Cain, District Judge. (3:20-cv-02132-TMC)
Clayton Jones, Appellant Pro Se.
Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM.
Clayton Jones appeals the district court's order dismissing without prejudice 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 Jones 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 Jones received proper notice and filed timely objections to the magistrate judge's recommendation, he has waived appellate review of the district court's determination that his complaint should be dismissed pursuant to Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971), because the objections were not specific to the particularized legal recommendations made by the magistrate judge on the issues that he now seeks to challenge on appeal. 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)). As to the remaining issues that Jones raises on appeal, we have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. 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.
[*] Although the district court dismissed the action without prejudice, mere amendment cannot cure the deficiencies identified by the district court, and we thus have jurisdiction over this appeal. See Bing v. Brivo Sys., LLC, 959 F.3d 605, 610 (4th Cir. 2020), cert. denied, 141 S.Ct. 1376 (2021).