UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-1268
CHARLES W. PENLAND, SR.; MARY PENLAND,
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
v.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, at Greenville, South Carolina;
JERRY SAAD, Court appointed receiver in case number 7-05-cr-
710,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Greenville. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior
District Judge. (6:07-cv-03284-HMH)
Submitted: October 18, 2011 Decided: November 17, 2011
Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Charles W. Penland, Sr., Mary Penland, Appellants Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Charles W. Penland, Sr., a federal inmate, and his
wife, Mary Penland, appeal the district court’s order dismissing
without prejudice the civil action they filed against the United
States District Court for the District of South Carolina and
Jerry Saad, the receiver appointed in Charles Penland’s criminal
case. In their complaint, the Penlands sought money damages and
declaratory relief.
The district court referred this case to a magistrate
judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 636(b)(1)(B) (West 2006 & Supp.
2011). The magistrate judge recommended that the complaint be
dismissed on various grounds and advised the Penlands that the
failure to file specific objections to this recommendation would
waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the
recommendation. Although the Penlands did object to the
magistrate judge’s recommendation, their objections did not
specifically challenge the legal conclusions set forth therein,
which the district court subsequently adopted.
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. Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th
Cir. 1985); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). As we
2
explained in United States v. Midgette, 478 F.3d 616, 622
(2007), “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.” This
the Penlands did not do. Accordingly, we conclude the Penlands
have waived appellate review of the district court’s order by
failing to file specific objections to the dispositive aspects
of the magistrate judge’s recommendation, despite having
received proper notice. We thus 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 the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
AFFIRMED
3