Khammesherma Smith v. M. Lawrence

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: February 24, 2023
• Docket: 22-7123
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 22-7123 Doc: 9 Filed: 02/24/2023 Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22-7123

KHAMMESHERMA SMITH,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

M. LAWRENCE, Director of South Carolina Department of Corrections, in official capacity; J. RICHBURG, Administrative Coordinator, South Carolina Department of Corrections, in official capacity; OFFICER MIXON, Police Officer, South Carolina Department of Corrections, in official capacity,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior District Judge. (6:22-cv-01433-HMH)

Submitted: February 21, 2023 Decided: February 24, 2023

Before NIEMEYER and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Khammesherma Smith, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 22-7123 Doc: 9 Filed: 02/24/2023 Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:

Khammesherma Smith appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 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, he has forfeited

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

* To the extent Smith’s objections could be liberally construed as specifically objecting to the magistrate judge’s recommendation regarding interference with grievances, the district court properly denied relief on those claims. See Adams v. Rice, 40 F.3d 72, 75 (4th Cir. 1994).

2 USCA4 Appeal: 22-7123 Doc: 9 Filed: 02/24/2023 Pg: 3 of 3

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 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