Billy D. Morrison v. John Vandermosten

UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
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 of 3 --

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

-- 3 of 3 --