Billy Morrison v. John Vandermosten

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: May 5, 2023
• Docket: 21-7243
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 21-7243 Doc: 15 Filed: 05/05/2023 Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21-7243

BILLY D. MORRISON,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

JOHN VANDERMOSTEN; TROY ERVIN; A. WATKINS; G. WATT; MELINDA MCELHANNON; SAMANTHA YATES; KIM OLZEWSKI,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. J. Michelle Childs, District Judge. (4:19-cv-01926-JMC)

Submitted: March 22, 2023 Decided: May 5, 2023

Before QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judge, and MOTZ and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Billy D. Morrison, Appellant Pro Se. P. Christopher Smith, Jr., CLARKSON WALSH TERRELL & COULTER, PA, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 21-7243 Doc: 15 Filed: 05/05/2023 Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:

Billy D. Morrison, a South Carolina inmate, appeals the district court’s order

granting Defendants summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. 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 Morrison 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 Morrison received proper

notice and filed timely objections to the magistrate judge’s recommendation, he has waived

appellate review because the objections were not specific to the particularized legal

recommendations made by the magistrate judge. 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)).

In his informal brief, Morrison also challenges the magistrate judge’s earlier order

denying Morrison’s motions for leave to file a proposed second amended complaint and

for the appointment of counsel. Upon review of the record, we conclude that the denial of

2 USCA4 Appeal: 21-7243 Doc: 15 Filed: 05/05/2023 Pg: 3 of 3

leave to file a second amended complaint was well within the exercise of the magistrate

judge’s discretion. See Wilkins v. Montgomery, 751 F.3d 214, 220 (4th Cir. 2014)

(providing standard of review). As to the denial of appointment of counsel, the magistrate

judge observed that Morrison’s pleadings and exhibits demonstrated his ability to litigate

this case pro se. Morrison v. Vandermosten, No. 4:19-cv-01926-JMC (D.S.C.

Mar. 19, 2021). This ruling was not an abuse of discretion. See Whisenant v. Yuam, 739

F.2d 160, 163 (4th Cir. 1984), abrogated on other grounds by Mallard v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for

the S. Dist. of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296 (1989).

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. 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