4th Cir.

Marshall Leon Watkins v. South Carolina Department of Correction Dental Office; Dentist

June 2, 2026 ·26-6056 ·Per Curiam · By Aisha Johnson

The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of a civil rights complaint. The court held that the appellant forfeited the right to appellate review by failing to file specific objections to the magistrate judge's recommendation.

Background

Marshall Leon Watkins, proceeding pro se, appealed a district court order dismissing his complaint brought under Section nineteen hundred and eighty-three of Title forty-two of the United States Code. The district court had referred the case to a magistrate judge, who recommended dismissal and warned Watkins that failure 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 Watkins forfeited appellate review by failing to file objections after receiving proper notice.

What it means going forward

This decision reinforces the requirement in the Fourth Circuit that litigants must actively object to magistrate judge recommendations to avoid waiving their right to appeal the underlying order.