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UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 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 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, 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 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, 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. We deny Smith’s motion for appointment of counsel. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal

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