McKinley Wright, Jr. v. South Carolina Department of Employment, No. 23-2220 (4th Cir. 2024)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 23-2220 MCKINLEY WRIGHT, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, v. SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT AND WORKFORCE; SEFA TRANSPORTATION INC.; THE SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH CAROLINA; THE SOUTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS; STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA ADMINISTRATIVE LAW COURT; STEVEN A. JORDAN, Attorney for the South Carolina Department of Employment and Workforce; GRANT M. MILLS, Attorney for SEFA Transportation Inc., Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Mary G. Lewis, District Judge. (3:22-cv-03973-MGL) Submitted: April 11, 2024 Decided: April 15, 2024 Before AGEE and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. McKinley Wright, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: McKinley Wright, Jr., appeals the district court’s order dismissing his civil complaint without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). The magistrate judge recommended dismissing the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and advised Wright that failure to file timely, specific objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order based on 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 Wright 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)). Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. 2 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
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
