Curtis Richardson, a/k/a Curtis D. Richardson, a/k/a Curtis Dale Richardson v. Loris Police Chief, a/k/a Gary Buley; LT. ROBINSON

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 21-7504
CURTIS RICHARDSON, a/k/a Curtis D. Richardson, a/k/a Curtis Dale
Richardson; SYBIL MCNEIL,
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
v.
LORIS POLICE CHIEF, a/k/a Gary Buley; LT. ROBINSON,
Defendants - Appellees,
and
MICHAEL MCMILLIAN, U.S. Probation Officer; BRIAN JOHNSON, U.S.
Probation Officer,
Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence.
Joseph Dawson, III, District Judge. (4:20-cv-03818-JD)
Submitted: September 30, 2022 Decided: October 14, 2022
Before NIEMEYER, WYNN and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

-- 1 of 4 --

2
Curtis Richardson, Sybil McNeil, Appellants Pro Se. Jerome Scott Kozacki, WILLCOX
BUYCK & WILLIAMS, PA, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 2 of 4 --

3
PER CURIAM:
Curtis Richardson and Sybil McNeil appeal the district court’s order accepting the
recommendations of the magistrate judge and denying relief on their 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 that relief be denied and advised Richardson and
McNeil 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). McNeil has waived appellate review
by failing to file objections to the magistrate judge’s recommendations relevant to her after
receiving proper notice. Richardson, having received proper notice, filed timely objections
to the magistrate judge’s recommendation relevant to him, but has waived appellate review
because the objections were not specific to the particularized legal recommendations made
by the magistrate judge. 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)).]

-- 3 of 4 --

4
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 --