USCA4 Appeal: 21-7504 Doc: 20 Filed: 10/14/2022 Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21-7504

CURTIS RICHARDSON, a/k/a Curtis D. Richardson, a/k/a Curtis Dale Richardson; SYBIL MCNEIL, Plaintiffs - Appellants, v. LORIS POLICE CHIEF, a/k/a Gary Buley; LT. ROBINSON, Defendants - Appellees, and MICHAEL MCMILLIAN, U.S. Probation Officer; BRIAN JOHNSON, U.S. Probation Officer, Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence.

Joseph Dawson, III, District Judge. (4:20-cv-03818-JD)

Submitted: September 30, 2022 Decided: October 14, 2022

Before NIEMEYER, WYNN and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

USCA4 Appeal: 21-7504 Doc: 20 Filed: 10/14/2022 Pg: 2 of 4

Curtis Richardson, Sybil McNeil, Appellants Pro Se. Jerome Scott Kozacki, WILLCOX BUYCK & WILLIAMS, PA, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 21-7504 Doc: 20 Filed: 10/14/2022 Pg: 3 of 4

PER CURIAM: Curtis Richardson and Sybil McNeil appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendations of the magistrate judge and denying relief on their civil 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 Richardson and McNeil 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). McNeil has waived appellate review by failing to file objections to the magistrate judge’s recommendations relevant to her after receiving proper notice. Richardson, having received proper notice, filed timely objections to the magistrate judge’s recommendation relevant to him, but 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)).]

USCA4 Appeal: 21-7504 Doc: 20 Filed: 10/14/2022 Pg: 4 of 4

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