Richard Vandale Clowney v. Scdc

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 25-7074
RICHARD VANDALE CLOWNEY,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
SCDC,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock
Hill. Mary G. Lewis, District Judge. (0:24-cv-06381-MGL)
Submitted: April 28, 2026 Decided: May 1, 2026
Before WILKINSON and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit
Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Richard Vandale Clowney, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Richard Vandale Clowney appeals the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 amended 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 Clowney 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 Clowney 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)); see
also Massey v. Ojaniit, 759 F.3d 343, 352 (4th Cir. 2014) (stating that failure to file specific
objections is not cured by district court’s de novo review). 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 --