Marshall Leon WATKINS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. Nurse JONES; Lieutenant Smith; Lieutenant Surratt; Sergeant Lawless; Lieutenant Blackwell; Lt. Taylor; MS. Phyall; James Simmons; Kevin Cross, Defendants - Appellees.
Decided: June 25, 2019
Before NIEMEYER, AGEE, and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges.
Marshall Leon Watkins, Appellant Pro Se. Steven Raymond Kropski, EARHART OVERSTREET LLC, Charleston, South Carolina; Steven Michael Pruitt, MCDONALD, PATRICK, POSTON, HEMPHILL & ROPER, LLC, Greenwood, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Marshall Leon Watkins appeals the district court's order dismissing his third amended complaint, filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012). The district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) (2012). The magistrate judge recommended granting the remaining defendant's motion for summary judgment and advised Watkins that failure to file timely, specific objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the recommendation. Watkins filed timely objections to the magistrate judge's recommendation, but the district court determined that the objections were nonspecific and unrelated to the magistrate judge's dispositive findings. The district court adopted the magistrate judge's recommendation and denied relief.
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, 106 S.Ct. 466, 88 L.Ed.2d 435 (1985). “In order 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.” Martin v. Duffy, 858 F.3d 239, 245 (4th Cir. 2017) (internal quotation marks omitted). Watkins has waived appellate review by failing to file specific objections after receiving proper notice. 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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Was this helpful?
Response sent, thank you
Welcome to FindLaw's Cases & Codes
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.