DonSurvi Chisolm v. Jennifer Franklin , 668 F. App'x 59 ( 2016 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-6498
DONSURVI CHISOLM, a/k/a Don-Survi Chisolm,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
JENNIFER FRANKLIN; JESSICA EDMUNDS, Postal/Mailroom
Coordinator for South Carolina Dept. of Corr.; MICHAEL MCCOLL,
Director of SCDC,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge.
(4:14-cv-04364-RBH)
Submitted: August 18, 2016 Decided: August 23, 2016
Before WILKINSON, KING, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
DonSurvi Chisolm, Appellant Pro Se. Steven Michael Pruitt,
MCDONALD, PATRICK, POSTON, HEMPHILL & ROPER, LLC, Greenwood, South
Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
DonSurvi Chisolm appeals the district court’s order denying
relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint. The district
court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2012). The magistrate judge recommended
that relief be denied and advised Chisolm that failure to file
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. Wright v. Collins,
766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474
U.S. 140 (1985). Although Chisolm filed objections to the
magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, he did not object to
the magistrate judge’s recommendation, adopted by the district
court, that the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity and
Eleventh Amendment immunity. He has therefore waived appellate
review of his equal protection claim for damages. See United
States v. Schronce, 727 F.2d 91, 93-94 (4th Cir. 1984). We further
conclude that Chisolm’s claim for injunctive relief is moot, as
the prison mailroom no longer forwards mail written in a foreign
language for inspection unless there is an independent reason to
believe it presents a security risk.
2
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.
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
3