CASH v. Jane & John Does, Spartanburg County Jail Officers, Defendants. (2020)
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Alfred W. CASH, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. Chuck WRIGHT, Sheriff, Spartanburg County; Major Freeman; Captain Hayes; Deputy Ellis, Male Guard/Staff; Deputy Johnson, Female Guard/Staff, Defendants – Appellees, Jane & John Does, Spartanburg County Jail Officers, Defendants.
Decided: March 13, 2020
Before NIEMEYER and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge.
Alfred Wayne Cash, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Stephanie Holmes Burton, GIBBES & BURTON, LLC, Spartanburg, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Alfred W. Cash appeals the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2018) complaint. The district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2018). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Cash 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, 106 S.Ct. 466, 88 L.Ed.2d 435 (1985). Although Cash 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)). 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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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.