UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-2289
WESLEY EDWARD SMITH, III; LESHELL D. SMITH,
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
v.
WASHINGTON MUTUAL BANK FA, successor to WASHINGTON MUTUAL
HOME LOANS, successor in interest by merger to FLEET
MORTGAGE CORPORATION other WASHINGTON MUTUAL HOME LOANS
INCORPORATED; CTX MORTGAGE CORPORATION LLC; CENTEX HOMES
INCORPORATED; BILL EVERETTE; CHERYL FISCHER; SAMUEL C.
WATERS; DENNIS A. BROSNAN; REGINALD P. CORLEY; REBECCA ANNE
ROBERTS; ANDREA K. ST AMAND; THOMAS C. HILDEBRAND, Jr.;
ROBERT WOODS; JENNY C. HONEYCUTT; JENNIFER A. COX,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston. Margaret B. Seymour, District
Judge. (2:08-cv-02573-MBS)
Submitted: January 15, 2009 Decided: January 21, 2009
Before MOTZ and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Wesley Edward Smith, III, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Plaintiffs-Appellants Wesley Edward Smith, III and
Leshell D. Smith appeal the district court’s order dismissing
their civil action challenging the foreclosure of their home.
Plaintiffs asserted violations under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000),
the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (“SCRA”), 50 App. U.S.C.
§ 501 et seq. (2000), and South Carolina law. Their case was
referred to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1)(B). The magistrate judge recommended that the
action be summarily dismissed for failure to state a claim on
account of Plaintiffs’ failure to attribute any state action to
the named Defendants, to state a claim under the SCRA, and for
lack of diversity supporting their claim under South Carolina
law. The magistrate judge also clearly advised Plaintiffs that
failure to file specific and timely objections to his
recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court
order based on the recommendation. Despite this warning,
Plaintiffs filed only general, conclusory objections to the
magistrate judge’s recommendation as to Plaintiffs’ failures
concerning their SCRA and South Carolina law claims.
Plaintiffs then filed an amended complaint adding
allegations of violations of the Fair Housing Act (“FHA”), 42
U.S.C. § 3601 et seq. (2000) and the Equal Credit Opportunity
Act (“ECOA”), 15 U.S.C. § 1691 et seq. (2006). Concurring in
2
the magistrate judge’s determination that Plaintiffs failed to
state a cause of action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and concluding
that Plaintiffs’ claims under the FHA and the ECOA appeared
untimely, that Plaintiffs failed to allege facts to show that
the FHA claim was exhausted, and that Plaintiffs’ challenge to
the foreclosure, having been litigated in state court, was
barred by res judicata, the district court adopted the report
and recommendation and dismissed Plaintiffs’ action.
Pursuant to § 636(b)(1), a district court is required
to conduct a de novo review of those portions of the magistrate
judge's report to which a specific objection has been made. The
court need not conduct de novo review, however, “when a party
makes general and conclusory objections that do not direct the
court to a specific error in the magistrate's proposed findings
and recommendations.” Orpiano v. Johnson, 687 F.2d 44, 47 (4th
Cir. 1982); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). 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 that failure to
so object will waive appellate review. Orpiano, 687 F.3d at 47.
The Smiths have waived appellate review of their
claims under the SCRA and South Carolina law by failing to
direct the district court to specific errors in the magistrate
judge’s report and recommendation. See Wright v. Collins, 766
3
F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985) (failure to file specific
objections results in waiver of appellate review of the
substance of that recommendation when parties have been warned
of consequences of noncompliance). As to the Smiths’ claims
under § 1983, the FHA, and the ECOA, we have reviewed the record
and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the
district court’s order. Smith v. Washington Mutual Bank, FA,
Case No. 2:08-cv-02573-MBS (D.S.C. Oct. 14, 2008). We dispense
with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
adequately presented in the materials before the court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
4