Thomas C. Jacobi Allen v. United States of America

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 24-2003
THOMAS C. JACOBI ALLEN,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
Columbia. Jacquelyn Denise Austin, District Judge. (3:24-cv-03203-JDA)
Submitted: March 27, 2025 Decided: March 31, 2025
Before THACKER and BERNER, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Thomas C. Jacobi Allen, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Thomas C. Jacobi Allen appeals the district court’s order dismissing without
prejudice his civil 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 denying the
petition and dismissing the case for failure to state a claim and advised Allen that failure
to file timely, specific objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review of
a district court order based on 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 Allen received proper notice
he failed to file timely specific objections to the magistrate judge’s recommendation.∗ 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.
∗ Although Allen filed several motions subsequent to the magistrate judge’s
recommendation, none of them constituted specific objections to the magistrate judge’s
recommendation.

-- 2 of 3 --

3
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 --