Jamel Williams v. Carmen T. Mullen, in her individual

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 25-6545
JAMEL WILLIAMS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
CARMEN T. MULLEN, in her individual and official capacity; REED EVANS, in
his individual and official capacity; KATIE MCCALLISTER, in her individual and
official capacity; ERVIN FORD, in his individual and official capacity; TIM
KOSCH, in his individual and official capacity; CHRIS HILGENDORF, in his
individual and official capacity; BRYAN P. STIRLING, in his individual and
official capacity; KEVIN SHWEDO, in his individual and official capacity,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
Charleston. Richard Mark Gergel, District Judge. (2:25-cv-01072-RMG)
Submitted: December 23, 2025 Decided: December 31, 2025
Before WILKINSON and RUSHING, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jamel Williams, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Jamel Williams appeals the district court’s order dismissing without prejudice and
without leave to amend his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 amended complaint and the order denying his
“Motion to Change Jurisdiction and Venue Pursuant to Rule 82(b),” which the court
construed as a Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion and denied. The district court referred
Williams’s § 1983 complaint to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B).
The magistrate judge recommended dismissing without prejudice Williams’s § 1983
claims and declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims. The
magistrate judge advised Williams 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 Williams received proper
notice and filed timely objections to the magistrate judge’s recommendation, Williams’s
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

-- 2 of 3 --

3
omitted)). Accordingly, we deny Williams’s pending motions and 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 --