McKinley Wright, Jr. v. South Carolina Department of Employment

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 23-2220
MCKINLEY WRIGHT, JR.,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT AND WORKFORCE;
SEFA TRANSPORTATION INC.; THE SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH
CAROLINA; THE SOUTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS; STATE OF
SOUTH CAROLINA ADMINISTRATIVE LAW COURT; STEVEN A. JORDAN,
Attorney for the South Carolina Department of Employment and Workforce;
GRANT M. MILLS, Attorney for SEFA Transportation Inc.,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
Columbia. Mary G. Lewis, District Judge. (3:22-cv-03973-MGL)
Submitted: April 11, 2024 Decided: April 15, 2024
Before AGEE and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
McKinley Wright, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
McKinley Wright, Jr., appeals the district court’s order dismissing his civil
complaint without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The district court
referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). The
magistrate judge recommended dismissing the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction
and advised Wright 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 Wright received proper notice
and filed timely objections to the magistrate judge’s recommendation, his objections were
not specific to the particularized legal recommendations made by the magistrate judge, so
appellate review is foreclosed. 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 --