Opinion
22-7123
02-24-2023
KHAMMESHERMA SMITH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. M. LAWRENCE, Director of South Carolina Department of Corrections, in official capacity; J. RICHBURG, Administrative Coordinator, South Carolina Department of Corrections, in official capacity; OFFICER MIXON, Police Officer, South Carolina Department of Corrections, in official capacity, Defendants-Appellees.
Khammesherma Smith, Appellant Pro Se.
UNPUBLISHED
Submitted: February 21, 2023
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior District Judge. (6:22-cv-01433-HMH)
Khammesherma Smith, Appellant Pro Se.
Before NIEMEYER and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM.
Khammesherma Smith 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 Smith 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 Smith received proper notice and filed timely objections to the magistrate judge's recommendation, he has forfeited appellate review because the objections were not specific to the particularized legal recommendations made by the magistrate judge.[*] 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.
[*] To the extent Smith's objections could be liberally construed as specifically objecting to the magistrate judge's recommendation regarding interference with grievances, the district court properly denied relief on those claims. See Adams v. Rice, 40 F.3d 72, 75 (4th Cir. 1994).