USCA4 Appeal: 25-6499 Doc: 10 Filed: 08/26/2025 Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 25-6499

JOHN HENRY, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. WARDEN JOHN PALMER; ASSOCIATE WARDEN STANLEY TERRY, Defendants - Appellees.

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

Mary G. Lewis, District Judge. (4:24-cv-04096-MGL)

Submitted: August 21, 2025 Decided: August 26, 2025

Before WILKINSON, HARRIS, and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

John Henry, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Todd Smith, LOGAN & JOLLY, LLP, Anderson, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 25-6499 Doc: 10 Filed: 08/26/2025 Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM: John Henry appeals the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint for failure to prosecute. 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 the complaint be dismissed and advised Henry 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 Henry received proper notice and filed timely objections to the magistrate judge’s recommendation, his objections were not specific to each of the particularized legal recommendations made by the magistrate judge. Specifically, Henry failed to object to the magistrate judge’s recommendation that the complaint be dismissed for failure to prosecute. Thus, appellate review of this issue 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)).

USCA4 Appeal: 25-6499 Doc: 10 Filed: 08/26/2025 Pg: 3 of 3

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