Opinion
No. 19-6394
08-26-2019
JOHN BACCUS, a/k/a John Roosevelt Baccus, a/k/a John Baccus Roosevelt, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. BRIAN P. STIRLING; DEPT OF CORRECTIONS, SCDC; N. C. MARCHANT; T. CONWELL; SCOTT LEWIS; ALAN M. WILSON; DAVID C. NORTON; BRISTOW MARCHANT, Defendants - Appellees.
John Roosevelt Baccus, Appellant Pro Se.
UNPUBLISHED
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Anderson. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., Senior District Judge. (8:18-cv-01880-JFA) Before KING and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. John Roosevelt Baccus, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:
John Roosevelt Baccus appeals the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint. The district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2012). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Baccus 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. United States v. Midgette, 478 F.3d 616, 621-22 (4th Cir. 2007); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 154-55 (1985). Although Baccus filed timely objections to the magistrate judge's recommendation, he has waived appellate review because the objections were not specific to the particularized legal recommendations made by the magistrate judge. See Midgette, 478 F.3d at 622 (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"). 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