Marshall Leon Watkins v. KILOLO KIJAKAZI, Acting Commissioner of Social Security

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 22-1145
MARSHALL LEON WATKINS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
KILOLO KIJAKAZI, Acting Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock
Hill. Mary G. Lewis, District Judge. (0:21-cv-03900-MGL)
Submitted: June 28, 2022 Decided: September 1, 2022
Before AGEE, WYNN, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Marshall Leon Watkins, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Marshall Leon Watkins appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his
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
Watkins 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 Watkins 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. We deny all of Watkins’
pending motions, including his motions for a blood test, release, to rule, and other relief.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

-- 2 of 3 --

3
presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
AFFIRMED

-- 3 of 3 --