Yu Hin Chan v. RE/MAX; Kevin C. McClanahan; Karen May Bacdayan; Shantonu Basu; Carmen A. Pacheco; Dawn Hill-Kearse
April 27, 2026·25-2435·Per Curiam·By Aisha Johnson
The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed an appeal because the appellant failed to object to a magistrate judge's recommendation. The court held that the appellant forfeited the right to appellate review by not filing timely, specific objections after receiving proper notice.
Background
The appellant, Yu Hin Chan, filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina. The district court referred the case to a magistrate judge under Section twenty-eight United States Code, Section six hundred thirty-six, subsection B, one, subsection B. The magistrate judge recommended dismissing the complaint for failure to allege sufficient facts to state a claim and warned Chan that failing to file timely, specific objections could waive appellate review.
The court’s reasoning
The court explained that 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 parties have been warned of the consequences of noncompliance. Citing Martin versus Duffy, Wright versus Collins, and Thomas versus Arn, the court found that Chan forfeited appellate review by failing to file objections after receiving proper notice.
What it means going forward
This decision reinforces the requirement that litigants must actively object to magistrate judge recommendations to preserve issues for appeal, or they risk losing the right to challenge the district court’s order based on that recommendation.
