Samuel Lewis v. Warden Eagleton


UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 4:08-cv-02800-GRA Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998482185] [10-6396]

Download PDF
Samuel Lewis v. Warden Eagleton Doc. 0 Case: 10-6396 Document: 10 Date Filed: 12/09/2010 Page: 1 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-6396 SAMUEL J. LEWIS, Plaintiff Appellant, v. WARDEN EAGLETON, Individual and official capacities; WARDEN CHAVIS, Associate Warden, Individual and official capacities; MS. WEATHERFORD, Individual and official capacities; MR. SPIRES, Individual and official capacities; LIEUTENANT HIPP, Individual and official capacities; MS. HAGE, Nurse Supervisor, Individual and official capacities; OFFICER CYPRESS; OFFICER MATTHEWS, Individual and official capacities; ECI MEDICAL STAFF, Individual and official capacities, Defendants Appellees, and SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., Senior District Judge. (4:08-cv-02800-GRA) Submitted: November 10, 2010 Decided: December 9, 2010 Before WILKINSON, DUNCAN, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Case: 10-6396 Document: 10 Date Filed: 12/09/2010 Page: 2 Samuel J. Lewis, Appellant Pro Se. William Henry Davidson, II, Lawrence S. Kerr, DAVIDSON & LINDEMANN, PA, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 Case: 10-6396 Document: 10 Date Filed: 12/09/2010 Page: 3 PER CURIAM: Samuel Jerome Lewis appeals the district court's order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. 1983 (2006) complaint. Lewis also appeals the magistrate judge's denials of his motions to appoint counsel. error in We have reviewed the record and find no reversible the denial of the motions to appoint counsel. Accordingly, we affirm those orders. Lewis v. Eagleton, No. 4:08-cv-02800-GRA (D.S.C. Feb. 20, 2009; Mar. 9, 2009). Turning to the district court's order denying 1983 relief, the court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. 636(b)(1)(B) (West 2006 & Supp. 2010). The magistrate Lewis judge that recommended failure to that file relief timely be denied and advised and specific objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the recommendation. The magistrate timely filing of specific is objections to to a judge's recommendation necessary 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 Lewis Cir. 1985); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). has waived appellate review by failing to file specific 3 Case: 10-6396 Document: 10 Date Filed: 12/09/2010 Page: 4 objections after receiving proper notice. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal before contentions the court are and adequately argument presented not in aid the the materials decisional would process. AFFIRMED 4

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?