Darrell Green v. Trevor Howlett ( 2019 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 19-7271
DARRELL GREEN,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
and
LOW CUT LAWNCARE AND PRESSURE WASHING,
Plaintiff,
v.
S/A TREVOR HOWLETT; S/A GLENN WOODS; AGENT DERRICK SUGGS;
AGENT CASEY JONES; OFC. SHANE KEITH,
Defendants - Appellees,
and
SOUTH CAROLINA LAW ENFORCEMENT DIVISION; 15TH CIRCUIT DRUG
ENFORCEMENT UNIT; FLORENCE COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT,
Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence.
Mary G. Lewis, District Judge. (4:18-cv-00114-MGL)
Submitted: December 3, 2019 Decided: December 20, 2019
Before NIEMEYER, KEENAN, and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Darrell Green, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
Darrell Green appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment to
Defendants in Green’s civil action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012). 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 granting Defendants’ summary judgment motion and
declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Green’s state law claims. The
magistrate judge advised Green that failure to file timely, specific objections to the
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. Wright v. Collins, 766
F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Green has
waived appellate review by failing to file specific objections to the particularized legal
recommendations made by the magistrate judge after receiving proper notice. See United
States v. Midgette, 478 F.3d 616, 621 (4th Cir. 2007) (holding that a litigant “waives a right
to appellate review of particular issues by failing to file timely objections specifically
directed to those issues”). Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. We
also deny Green’s motion to appoint counsel.
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
3