USCA4 Appeal: 22-6825 Doc: 21 Filed: 11/03/2022 Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22-6825

RICARDO FISHBURNE,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

S. C. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; A/W ANNE SHEPPARD; BRIAN KENDELL, Warden; A/W CLARK; DIRECTOR BRIAN STIRLING; SERGEANT HOWARD; CLASSIFICATION RAVENEL; SLED,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Anderson. Timothy M. Cain, District Judge. (8:21-cv-03542-TMC-JDA)

Submitted: October 26, 2022 Decided: November 3, 2022

Before KING and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ricardo Fishburne, Appellant Pro Se. Andrew Lindemann, LINDEMANN & DAVIS, P.A., Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 22-6825 Doc: 21 Filed: 11/03/2022 Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:

Ricardo Fishburne appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his motion for

a preliminary injunction filed as part of his ongoing

action. The district

court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to

(b)(1)(B). The

magistrate judge recommended that Fishburne’s motion be denied and advised Fishburne

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,

(4th Cir. 2017); Wright v. Collins,

(4th Cir. 1985); see

also Thomas v. Arn,

(1985). Fishburne received proper notice of

these requirements, but he has waived appellate review because the objections were not

specific to the particularized legal recommendations made by the magistrate judge. See

Martin,

(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 district court’s

order.

2 USCA4 Appeal: 22-6825 Doc: 21 Filed: 11/03/2022 Pg: 3 of 3

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