Robert William Wazney v. KEN NELSON, Warden, Individual

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 22-6500
ROBERT WILLIAM WAZNEY,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
KEN NELSON, Warden, Individual and Official Capacities; RANDALL
WILLIAMS, Regional Director, Individual and Official Capacities; ROSEANNE
WILSON, Grievance Coordinator, Individual and Official Capacities; LEE
MEDICAL DOCTOR, Individual and Official Capacities; MS. SINGLETARY, Lee
Medical Nurse, Individual and Official Capacities; BRIAN STIRLING, Director,
Individual and Official Capacities; LEFFORD FATE, Deputy Director Health
Services, Individual and Official Capacities; MEDICAL DEPARTMENT LEE
CORRECTIONAL,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
Greenville. Joseph Dawson, III, District Judge. (6:20-cv-03366-JD)
Submitted: September 22, 2022 Decided: September 27, 2022
Before WILKINSON, DIAZ, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Robert William Wazney, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Robert William Wazney appeals the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 civil rights 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 Wazney’s
motion for a third extension of time to file an amended complaint be denied and that the
action be dismissed and advised Wazney that failure to file timely and 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). Although Wazney 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)). Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.

-- 2 of 3 --

3
We deny Wazney’s motion to appoint counsel and 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 --