Robbie Peterson v. Richard Burge

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 7:14-cv-00141-TMC. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999600180]. Mailed to: Robbie Peterson. [14-7741]

Appeal: 14-7741

Doc: 9

Filed: 06/11/2015

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED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

Before MOTZ and
Circuit Judge.

GREGORY,

Decided:

Circuit

Judges,

and

June 11, 2015

DAVIS,

Senior

Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-7741

Doc: 9

Filed: 06/11/2015

Pg: 2 of 3

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.
to

a

magistrate

(2012),
case.

and

the

The district court referred Peterson’s case
judge

pursuant

magistrate

to

judge

28

U.S.C.

recommended

§ 636(b)(1)(B)
dismissing

the

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

Appeal: 14-7741

apply

Doc: 9

the

Filed: 06/11/2015

proper

standard

of

Pg: 3 of 3

review

to

a

magistrate

recommendation warrants vacatur of the court’s order.

judge’s
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.
facts

and

materials

legal
before

We dispense with oral argument because the

contentions

are

adequately

this

and

argument

court

presented

would

not

in

the

aid

the

decisional process.
VACATED AND REMANDED

3