Kareem Adule Jabbar Leaphart v. Douglas Curry

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 22-7166
KAREEM ADULE JABBAR LEAPHART,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
DOUGLAS CURRY,
Defendant - Appellee,
and
ROBERT MCINTYRE; JAMES GLEATON; JOHN MOORE; TODD STRANGE;
LEXINGTON POLICE DEPARTMENT,
Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
Columbia. Donald C. Coggins, Jr., District Judge. (3:21-cv-00494-DCC)
Submitted: May 23, 2023 Decided: May 25, 2023
Before AGEE, WYNN, and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

-- 1 of 4 --

2
Kareem Adule Jabbar Leaphart, Appellant Pro Se. William Henry Davidson, II,
DAVIDSON, WREN & DEMASTERS, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 2 of 4 --

3
PER CURIAM:
Kareem Adule Jabbar Leaphart appeals the district court’s order denying relief on
his 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 Leaphart 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 Leaphart 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
and adopted by the district court,* 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
* The magistrate judge recommended granting summary judgment in favor of
Appellee Douglas Curry on the grounds that Leaphart’s claims were barred by the statute
of limitations, Curry was entitled to qualified immunity, and the action was barred by Heck
v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994). The district court adopted the magistrate judge’s
recommendation regarding the statute of limitations and qualified immunity, but did not
adopt the magistrate judge’s recommendation as to Heck v. Humphrey.

-- 3 of 4 --

4
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 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

-- 4 of 4 --