Robbie Peterson v. Richard Burgess , 606 F. App'x 75 ( 2015 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-7741
ROBBIE WAYNE PETERSON,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
RICHARD P. BURGESS, of Cherokee County Sheriff Office,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Spartanburg. Timothy M. Cain, District
Judge. (7:14-cv-00141-TMC)
Submitted: April 30, 2015 Decided: June 11, 2015
Before MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Robbie Wayne Peterson, Appellant Pro Se. Stephanie Holmes
Burton, GIBBES & BURTON, LLC, Spartanburg, South Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Robbie Wayne Peterson appeals the district court’s order
dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint and state law
defamation claim. The district court referred Peterson’s case
to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B)
(2012), and the magistrate judge recommended dismissing the
case. Although Peterson timely filed three objections to the
magistrate judge’s recommendation, ∗ the district court determined
that the objections were nonspecific and, thus, did not conduct
a de novo review of any portion of the recommendation.
The timely filing of specific objections to a magistrate
judge’s recommendation is necessary to preserve de novo review
of the substance of the recommendation by the district court
when the parties have been warned that failure to object will
waive appellate review. Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46
(4th Cir. 1985); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 155
(1985). To qualify as specific, a party’s objections must
“reasonably . . . alert the district court of the true ground
for the objection.” United States v. Midgette, 478 F.3d 616,
622 (4th Cir. 2007); see also United States v. Benton, 523 F.3d
424, 428 (4th Cir. 2008) (same). A district court’s failure to
∗
Giving Peterson the benefit of the earliest possible date
of filing, the objections were timely. See Houston v. Lack, 487
U.S. 266, 276 (1988) (prison mailbox rule).
2
apply the proper standard of review to a magistrate judge’s
recommendation warrants vacatur of the court’s order. Orpiano
v. Johnson, 687 F.2d 44, 47-48 (4th Cir. 1982).
We conclude that Peterson’s objections, although perhaps
inartfully pled, were specific enough “to alert the district
court of the true ground[s] for the objection[s].” Midgette,
478 F.3d at 622; see also Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94
(2007) (recognizing that pro se pleadings, like Peterson’s, are
to be construed liberally). Accordingly, we vacate the district
court’s order and remand for the court to conduct a de novo
review of the portions of the magistrate judge’s report to which
Peterson objected. 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.
VACATED AND REMANDED
3