Jayson Bradley White v. PRIME CARE LLC; BETSY C. JIVIDEN, Commissoner

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 21-7520
JAYSON BRADLEY WHITE,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
PRIME CARE LLC; BETSY C. JIVIDEN, Commissoner,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at
Clarksburg. John Preston Bailey, District Judge. (1:21-cv-00112-JPB-JPM)
Submitted: October 13, 2022 Decided: October 17, 2022
Before NIEMEYER and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jayson Bradley White, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Jayson Bradley White appeals the district court’s order dismissing without prejudice
his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil action. 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 action
be dismissed and advised White 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 White received proper notice and filed timely objections to the magistrate
judge’s recommendation, he 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)). Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of
the district court.

-- 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 --