LALONE v. THOMPSON (2020)

Jesse Vernon LaLone 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 LaLone 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 the 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, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 155, 106 S.Ct. 466, 88 L.Ed.2d 435 (1985). LaLone argues on appeal that he properly objected to all portions of the magistrate judge's report. We disagree. Although LaLone received proper notice and filed timely objections to the magistrate judge's recommendation, he has waived appellate review of his due process claim because the objections were not specific to the particularized legal recommendations made by the magistrate judge relating to the availability of postconviction remedies. 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)).

We also conclude that, although LaLone specifically objected to the sovereign immunity question, he has forfeited appellate review of that issue because he makes no argument in his informal brief on appeal that such immunity is inapplicable or otherwise waived. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b).

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. We deny LaLone's motion to appoint counsel, and 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

PER CURIAM:

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.