Joseph Witchard v. Bryan Antonelli ( 2020 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 19-2248
JOSEPH WITCHARD,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
BRYAN M. ANTONELLI, Warden of FCI Williamsburg; UNITED STATES OF
AMERICA,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 19-2317
JOSEPH WITCHARD,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
BRYAN M. ANTONELLI, Warden of FCI Williamsburg; UNITED STATES OF
AMERICA,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
Anderson. Bruce H. Hendricks, District Judge. (8:19-cv-01609-BHH)
Submitted: April 14, 2020 Decided: April 16, 2020
Before WILKINSON, QUATTLEBAUM, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Joseph Witchard, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
In these consolidated appeals, federal inmate Joseph Witchard appeals the district
court’s orders denying relief on his civil action challenging his confinement and denying
his postjudgment motion for reconsideration. The district court referred this case to a
magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2018). The magistrate judge
recommended that relief be denied and advised Witchard 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 Witchard received proper
notice and 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 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)).
Moreover, Witchard failed to meet the standard for reconsideration under Fed. R.
Civ. P. 59(e). See Robinson v. Wix Filtration Corp. LLC, 599 F.3d 403, 407 (4th Cir. 2010)
3
(setting out Rule 59(e) standard). We therefore affirm the district court’s orders dismissing
Witchard’s civil action and denying reconsideration. We also deny Witchard’s pending
motions. 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
4