John Henry v. Warden John Palmer; Associate Warden Stanley Terry

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 25-6499
JOHN HENRY,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
WARDEN JOHN PALMER; ASSOCIATE WARDEN STANLEY TERRY,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence.
Mary G. Lewis, District Judge. (4:24-cv-04096-MGL)
Submitted: August 21, 2025 Decided: August 26, 2025
Before WILKINSON, HARRIS, and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
John Henry, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Todd Smith, LOGAN & JOLLY, LLP, Anderson,
South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
John Henry appeals the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983
complaint for failure to prosecute. 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
complaint be dismissed and advised Henry 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 Henry received proper notice
and filed timely objections to the magistrate judge’s recommendation, his objections were
not specific to each of the particularized legal recommendations made by the magistrate
judge. Specifically, Henry failed to object to the magistrate judge’s recommendation that
the complaint be dismissed for failure to prosecute. Thus, appellate review of this issue 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)).

-- 2 of 3 --

3
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 --