Opinion
21-7019
10-17-2022
ROBERT LOUIS GARRETT, JR., a/k/a Chubby, a/k/a Chubb, a/k/a Tru, a/k/a Kweli, a/k/a Justice, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. RANDALL FOWLER, JR.; LASLEY; DEGEORGIS; WANTONTA GOLDEN; JEFF BILYEU; R. BLACKBURN; KENNETH MYERS; JAMES JENNINGS; NATHAN RICE, Defendants - Appellees.
Robert Louis Garrett, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.
UNPUBLISHED
Submitted: October 13, 2022
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Cameron McGowan Currie, Senior District Judge. (0:18-cv-01417-CMC)
Robert Louis Garrett, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.
Before NIEMEYER and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM.
Robert Louis Garrett, Jr., a South Carolina prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court's order (1) accepting the magistrate judge's recommendation to dismiss, or grant summary judgment on, most of the claims asserted in Garrett's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action; and (2) rejecting the magistrate judge's recommendation to allow two of Garrett's claims to proceed and awarding Defendants summary judgment on those claims. We affirm.
The district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), who recommended dismissing or granting summary judgment on most of Garrett's claims. Although the magistrate judge advised Garrett that failure to file timely, specific objections to the recommendation would waive appellate review of a district court order based on the recommendation, Garrett filed no objections-despite receiving two extensions of the objections period. 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). We thus conclude that, by failing to file objections to the magistrate judge's recommendation after receiving proper notice, Garrett has waived appellate review of the district court's order to the extent it adopted the magistrate judge's recommendation.
We turn then to that portion of the district court's order that rejected the magistrate judge's recommendation. Specifically, although the magistrate judge recommended allowing two of Garrett's claims to proceed, the district court granted Defendants summary judgment on those claims after consideration of these claims on the merits and in conjunction with Defendants' objections. On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the informal brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Garrett's informal brief does not meaningfully challenge this aspect of district court's disposition, we conclude that he has forfeited appellate review of the court's rulings. See Jackson v. Lightsey, 775 F.3d 170, 177 (4th Cir. 2014) ("The informal brief is an important document; under Fourth Circuit rules, our review is limited to issues preserved in that brief.").
For these reasons, we affirm the district court's order. 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.