Earl Vennings, Jr. v. Beatrice Whitten

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 20-1490
EARL VENNINGS, JR.,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
BEATRICE WHITTEN,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
Charleston. Mary G. Lewis, District Judge. (2:20-cv-00003-MGL)
Submitted: September 24, 2020 Decided: September 28, 2020
Before HARRIS and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit
Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Earl Vennings, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Earl Vennings, Jr., 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 Vennings 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 Vennings 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.
2
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