USCA4 Appeal: 24-1585 Doc: 7 Filed: 10/24/2024 Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 24-1585

KANDANCE WELLS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. KANAWHA COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT; CARRIE WEBSTER; JENNIFER BAILEY; JOANNA TABIT; CATHY GATSON; PATRICK MORRISEY; JUDGE STOWERS; JUDGE ROWE, Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Charleston. Thomas E. Johnston, District Judge. (2:23-cv-00604)

Submitted: October 22, 2024 Decided: October 24, 2024

Before KING and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Kandance A. Wells, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 24-1585 Doc: 7 Filed: 10/24/2024 Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM: Kandance Wells appeals the district court’s order denying relief on her 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 Wells 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 Wells 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, although we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we affirm the judgment of the district court.

USCA4 Appeal: 24-1585 Doc: 7 Filed: 10/24/2024 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