USCA4 Appeal: 24-1479 Doc: 17 Filed: 09/23/2024 Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 24-1479

MARGARET JEAN SMITH,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

STEPHANIE R. MCCOMAS; STATE HOMELAND SECURITY; FEDERAL HOMELAND SECURITY; JEFF SANDY, WV Homeland Security,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Beckley. Frank W. Volk, Chief District Judge. (5:24-cv-00015)

Submitted: September 19, 2024 Decided: September 23, 2024

Before NIEMEYER, RICHARDSON, and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Margaret Jean Smith, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 24-1479 Doc: 17 Filed: 09/23/2024 Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:

Margaret Jean Smith appeals the district court’s order denying relief on her

complaint. The district court referred this case to a magistrate judge

pursuant to

(b)(1)(B). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be

denied and advised Smith 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). Although Smith received proper notice

and filed timely objections to the magistrate judge’s recommendation, her objections were

not specific to the particularized legal recommendations made by the magistrate judge, so

appellate review is foreclosed. 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 judgment of the district court. We deny Smith’s motion

for appointment of counsel. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal

2 USCA4 Appeal: 24-1479 Doc: 17 Filed: 09/23/2024 Pg: 3 of 3

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would

not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

3