Khammesherma Smith v. M. LAWRENCE, Director of South Carolina Department of Corrections, in official capacity

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 22-7123
KHAMMESHERMA SMITH,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
M. LAWRENCE, Director of South Carolina Department of Corrections, in official
capacity; J. RICHBURG, Administrative Coordinator, South Carolina Department
of Corrections, in official capacity; OFFICER MIXON, Police Officer, South
Carolina Department of Corrections, in official capacity,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
Greenville. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior District Judge. (6:22-cv-01433-HMH)
Submitted: February 21, 2023 Decided: February 24, 2023
Before NIEMEYER and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Khammesherma Smith, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Khammesherma Smith 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 Smith 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 Smith received proper notice
and filed timely objections to the magistrate judge’s recommendation, he has forfeited
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
* To the extent Smith’s objections could be liberally construed as specifically
objecting to the magistrate judge’s recommendation regarding interference with
grievances, the district court properly denied relief on those claims. See Adams v. Rice, 40
F.3d 72, 75 (4th Cir. 1994).

-- 2 of 3 --

3
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

-- 3 of 3 --