Grace v. Alamance County - Civil Rights Summary Judgment Affirmed

4th Circuit Daily Opinions

Filed April 2nd, 2026

Detected April 3rd, 2026

Summary

The Fourth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for defendants in a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights suit. The court held that plaintiff Michael Grace waived appellate review of claims related to his May 18, 2017 arrest by failing to file specific objections to the magistrate judge's statute of limitations determination. The district court's judgment is AFFIRMED.

View original document View source feed page

What changed

The Fourth Circuit affirmed the Middle District of North Carolina's grant of summary judgment in favor of Alamance County, Graham Police Department, and individual officers. The court held that because Grace failed to specifically object to the magistrate judge's finding that his May 18, 2017 arrest claims were barred by the statute of limitations, appellate review of those claims was foreclosed under Fourth Circuit precedent requiring timely, specific objections to preserve issues for appeal. The court also denied Grace's motion for appointment of counsel.

This is a routine appellate affirmance with no new obligations imposed on regulated entities. The case illustrates the procedural consequence of failing to raise specific objections to magistrate judge recommendations—courts strictly enforce the requirement that parties alert the district court to true grounds for objection. There is no compliance deadline or required action for outside entities.

Source document (simplified)

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 24-6538

MICHAEL JERMAINE GRACE, Plaintiff - Appellant,

ALAMANCE COUNTY; GRAHAM POLICE DEPARTMENT; OFFICER CROSS; OFFICER Z. HULCHER; DETECTIVE C.T. DENNY, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Loretta C. Biggs, Senior District Judge. (1:20-cv-00755-LCB-JEP) Submitted: March 6, 2026 Decided: April 2, 2026 Before KING and BERNER, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael Jermaine Grace, Appellant Pro Se. Steven Andrew Bader, Raleigh, North Carolina, Patrick Houghton Flanagan, CRANFILL SUMNER, LLP, Charlotte, North Carolina; Scott Douglas MacLatchie, HALL BOOTH SMITH, PC, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM: Michael Jermaine Grace appeals the district court's order granting summary judgment to Defendants on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. The district court referred * this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). The magistrate judge recommended that summary judgment be granted and advised Grace 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 Grace received proper notice

and filed timely objections to the magistrate judge's recommendation, Grace failed to specifically object to the magistrate judge's determination that the claims arising out of Grace's May 18, 2017, arrest were barred by the statute of limitations. Consequently, appellate review is foreclosed as to these claims. 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" (citation modified)).

Grace moves for appointment of counsel. We deny the motion. * 2

As for Grace's remaining claims, we have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. We therefore affirm the district court's judgment. Grace v. Alamance Cnty., No. 1:20-cv-00755-LCB-JEP (M.D.N.C. May 13, 2024). 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.