Jesse James v. Barry Faile , 632 F. App'x 143 ( 2016 )


Menu:
  •                                UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 15-6689
    JESSE M. JAMES,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    v.
    SHERIFF BARRY FAILE; MRS. DEBORAH HORNE,
    Defendants – Appellees,
    and
    LANCASTER COUNTY DETENTION CENTER, in Lancaster, SC,
    Defendant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    South Carolina, at Aiken.     David C. Norton, District Judge.
    (1:13-cv-00211-DCN)
    Submitted:   January 26, 2016                Decided:   February 8, 2016
    Before WILKINSON and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior
    Circuit Judge.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Jesse M. James, Appellant Pro Se.  David Allan DeMasters,
    DAVIDSON & LINDEMANN, PA, Columbia, South Carolina, for
    Appellees.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    2
    PER CURIAM:
    Jesse     M.   James     appeals    the   magistrate        judge’s     orders
    denying the appointment of counsel, the district court’s order
    granting his motion for an extension of time to file objections
    but warning that no further extensions would be granted, and the
    district        court’s      order    adopting      the     magistrate       judge’s
    recommendation and denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012)
    complaint.       We affirm.
    With regard to the nondispositive orders James challenges
    on appeal, we have reviewed the record and find no abuse of
    discretion.       See Carefirst of Md., Inc. v. Carefirst Pregnancy
    Ctrs., Inc., 
    334 F.3d 390
    , 396 (4th Cir. 2003) (reviewing order
    denying an extension); Miller v. Simmons, 
    814 F.2d 962
    , 966 (4th
    Cir.    1987)    (reviewing      order    denying   appointment      of     counsel).
    Turning to the dismissal order, 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 James that failure to file timely 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
    ,
    3
    845-46 (4th Cir. 1985); see also Thomas v. Arn, 
    474 U.S. 140
    (1985).     James   has   waived      appellate      review   of    the   district
    court’s dismissal order by failing to file objections.
    Accordingly,    we     affirm.         We    deny   James’    motion   for   a
    breakdown   of   security    logs.      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
    4
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 15-6689

Citation Numbers: 632 F. App'x 143

Filed Date: 2/8/2016

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 1/13/2023