Margaret Jean Smith v. Stephanie R. McComas

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 24-1479
MARGARET JEAN SMITH,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
STEPHANIE R. MCCOMAS; STATE HOMELAND SECURITY; FEDERAL
HOMELAND SECURITY; JEFF SANDY, WV Homeland Security,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at
Beckley. Frank W. Volk, Chief District Judge. (5:24-cv-00015)
Submitted: September 19, 2024 Decided: September 23, 2024
Before NIEMEYER, RICHARDSON, and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Margaret Jean Smith, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Margaret Jean Smith appeals the district court’s order denying relief on her
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, her 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 judgment of the district court. We deny Smith’s motion
for appointment of counsel. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal

-- 2 of 3 --

3
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would
not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED

-- 3 of 3 --