Wesley Edward Smith, Iii v. South Carolina

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 24-1050
WESLEY EDWARD SMITH, III,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
SOUTH CAROLINA; GOVERNOR HENRY MCMASTER; ATTORNEY
GENERAL ALAN WILSON; MAYOR JOSEPH P. RILEY, Retired; CHARLIE
CONDON, Solicitor of South Carolina, Retired; COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL
SECURITY; CAROLINA FRANCHISE HOLDINGS, INC. LLC; BURGER KING,
INC.; PEPSI BOTTLING GROUP, INC.; SUPERINTENDENT CCSD
CHARLESTON COUNTY SCHOOLS; CUMMINS ENGINE; JAMES E.
CLYBURN, Congressman, 14th District; WENDELL GILLYARD; MARVIN
PENDARVIS, South Carolina Legislator; BANK OF AMERICA; MILITARY
MAGNET ACADEMY; PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN; DONALD TRUMP, Former
President; BARACK OBAMA, Former President; GEORGE W. BUSH, Former
President; WILLIAM CLINTON, Former President; SENATOR LINDSEY
GRAHAM; DR. ANTHONY FAUCI, Chief Medical Physician; HILARY
CLINTON, Former Secretary of State; ANTONY BLINKEN, Secretary of State
Office; SENATOR MITCH MCCONNELL; NANCY PELOSI, Speaker of the
House; KEVIN MCCARTHY, Speaker of the House; PIGGLY WIGGLY, INC.;
LOW COUNTRY GROCERY FINANCIERS; HONORABLE JOSEPH DAWSON,
III; EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION; DEPARTMENT
OF LABOR, Wage Division Department; DANIEL FRANK BLANCHARD,
District Attorney; REMAX PRO REALTY, d/b/a Centex Home and Loans,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
Charleston. Bruce H. Hendricks, District Judge. (2:23-cv-05320-BHH)

-- 1 of 3 --

2
Submitted: February 27, 2024 Decided: March 1, 2024
Before WILKINSON, WYNN, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Wesley Edward Smith, III, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 2 of 3 --

3
PER CURIAM:
Wesley Edward Smith, III, appeals the district court’s order dismissing his civil
action under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). 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
action be dismissed and advised Smith that failure to file timely, specific objections to this
recommendation would 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). Smith has forfeited appellate review
by failing to file timely objections to the magistrate judge’s recommendation after
receiving proper notice. 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

-- 3 of 3 --