Larry James Tyler, a/k/a Larry James Tyler, 354459 v. JAMES HUDSON, Sheriff; DIANN WILKS

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 23-6794
LARRY JAMES TYLER, a/k/a Larry James Tyler, #354459,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
JAMES HUDSON, Sheriff; DIANN WILKS,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Beaufort.
Mary G. Lewis, District Judge. (9:22-cv-01544-MGL)
Submitted: October 19, 2023 Decided: October 24, 2023
Before KING and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Larry James Tyler, Appellant Pro Se. Carmen Vaughn Ganjehsani, Caleb Martin Riser,
RICHARSON PLOWDEN & ROBINSON, PA, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Larry James Tyler appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment to
defendant James Hudson on Tyler’s 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 granting summary judgment to Hudson and advised Tyler
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 Tyler received proper notice
and filed timely objections to the magistrate judge’s recommendation, his objections were
not specific to the particularized legal recommendations made by the magistrate judge, so
appellate review is foreclosed. 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 district court’s order. 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

-- 2 of 2 --