Opinion
22-7166
05-25-2023
KAREEM ADULE JABBAR LEAPHART, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. DOUGLAS CURRY, Defendant-Appellee, and ROBERT MCINTYRE; JAMES GLEATON; JOHN MOORE; TODD STRANGE; LEXINGTON POLICE DEPARTMENT, Defendants.
Kareem Adule Jabbar Leaphart, Appellant Pro Se. William Henry Davidson, II, DAVIDSON, WREN & DEMASTERS, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
UNPUBLISHED
Submitted: May 23 2023
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Donald C. Coggins, Jr., District Judge. (3:21-cv-00494-DCC)
Kareem Adule Jabbar Leaphart, Appellant Pro Se.
William Henry Davidson, II, DAVIDSON, WREN & DEMASTERS, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Before AGEE, WYNN, and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM
Kareem Adule Jabbar Leaphart 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 Leaphart 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 Leaphart 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 and adopted by the district court,[*] 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 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.
[*] The magistrate judge recommended granting summary judgment in favor of Appellee Douglas Curry on the grounds that Leaphart's claims were barred by the statute of limitations, Curry was entitled to qualified immunity, and the action was barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994). The district court adopted the magistrate judge's recommendation regarding the statute of limitations and qualified immunity, but did not adopt the magistrate judge's recommendation as to Heck v. Humphrey.