Clayton Jones v. State of South Carolina and Its Agents, individually and officially

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 21-6179
CLAYTON JONES,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA AND ITS AGENTS, individually and officially,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
Columbia. Timothy M. Cain, District Judge. (3:20-cv-02132-TMC)
Submitted: February 25, 2022 Decided: March 7, 2022
Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Clayton Jones, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Clayton Jones appeals the district court’s order dismissing without prejudice 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 Jones 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 Jones received proper notice
and filed timely objections to the magistrate judge’s recommendation, he has waived
appellate review of the district court’s determination that his complaint should be dismissed
pursuant to Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971), because the objections were not specific
to the particularized legal recommendations made by the magistrate judge on the issues
that he now seeks to challenge on appeal. 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
* Although the district court dismissed the action without prejudice, mere
amendment cannot cure the deficiencies identified by the district court, and we thus have
jurisdiction over this appeal. See Bing v. Brivo Sys., LLC, 959 F.3d 605, 610 (4th Cir.
2020), cert. denied, 141 S. Ct. 1376 (2021).

-- 2 of 3 --

3
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)). As
to the remaining issues that Jones raises on appeal, we have reviewed the record and find
no reversible error. 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 --