Opinion
23-6794
10-24-2023
LARRY JAMES TYLER, a/k/a Larry James Tyler, #354459, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. JAMES HUDSON, Sheriff; DIANN WILKS, Defendants-Appellees.
Larry James Tyler, Appellant Pro Se. Carmen Vaughn Ganjehsani, Caleb Martin Riser, RICHARSON PLOWDEN &ROBINSON, PA, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.
UNPUBLISHED
Submitted: October 19, 2023
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Beaufort. Mary G. Lewis, District Judge. (9:22-cv-01544-MGL)
Larry James Tyler, Appellant Pro Se.
Carmen Vaughn Ganjehsani, Caleb Martin Riser, RICHARSON PLOWDEN &ROBINSON, PA, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Before KING and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM.
Larry James Tyler appeals the district court's order granting summary judgment to defendant James Hudson on Tyler's 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 granting summary judgment to Hudson and advised Tyler 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 Tyler 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, 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 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.