Charles Anderson v. Quality Correctional Health Care

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 21-6455 CHARLES ANDERSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, and MICHAEL JOHNSON, Plaintiff, v. QUALITY CORRECTIONAL HEALTH CARE; LIEUTENANT SWEAT; SERGEANT REDDICK; OFFICER MILLER, Defendants - Appellees, and SUMTER LEE REGIONAL DETENTION CENTER; LIEUTENANT NEAL, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Beaufort. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior District Judge. (9:19-cv-02086-HMH) Submitted: March 1, 2022 Decided: March 7, 2022 Before NIEMEYER and KING, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Charles Spencer Anderson, Appellant Pro Se. James M. Davis, Jr., LINDEMANN & DAVIS, P.A., Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Charles Spencer Anderson appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint.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 Anderson 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 Anderson received proper notice and filed timely objections to the magistrate judge’s recommendation, he has waived 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)). Moreover, his informal brief on appeal does not challenge the district court’s finding that he did not file a specific objections to the magistrate judge’s report, so he has also forfeited any challenge to that finding. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. 3 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 4