Andred Clinton Davis, Jr. v. Paul Diamond; Christopher Fleming

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 23-7284
ANDRED CLINTON DAVIS, JR.,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
PAUL DIAMOND; CHRISTOPHER FLEMING,
Defendants - Appellees,
and
BETSY JIVIDEN; CARL ALDRIDGE; KEEFE LLC; SGT. BREWER; NURSE
REGINA LNU, Medical; LT. DAVIS,
Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at
Huntington. Robert C. Chambers, District Judge. (3:22-cv-00150)
Submitted: July 25, 2024 Decided: July 29, 2024
Before GREGORY, HARRIS, and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Andred Clinton Davis, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Andred Clinton Davis, Jr., appeals the district court’s order accepting the magistrate
judge’s recommendation and granting Defendants Paul Diamond and Christopher
Fleming’s motion to dismiss for failure to prosecute Davis’ 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
Davis that failure to file timely, specific objections to this recommendation could waive
appellate review of a district court order based upon the recommendation. Defendants
Diamond and Fleming move to dismiss this appeal, arguing that Davis failed to object to
the magistrate judge’s 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). Davis has forfeited appellate review by
failing to file objections to the magistrate judge’s recommendation after receiving proper
notice.∗
∗ To the extent Davis filed a letter to the district court that could be construed as
objections, the letter did not raise specific objections to the magistrate judge’s report. See
Martin v. Duffy, 858 F.3d 239, 245 (4th Cir. 2017) (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)).

-- 2 of 3 --

3
Accordingly, we grant Defendants’ motion to dismiss the appeal, and 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 --