Benny Barfield v. Mark Sanford


UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 6:09-cv-00850-PMD Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998414014] [10-6726]

Download PDF
Benny Barfield v. Mark Sanford Doc. 0 Case: 10-6726 Document: 16 Date Filed: 08/30/2010 Page: 1 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-6726 BENNY BARFIELD, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. HONORABLE MARK SANFORD, Governor; JOHN MCGILL, Director SCDMH; CHAD LOMINICK, Director SVPTP; JON OZMIT, Director SCDC; ROBERT STEVENSON, Warden SCDC, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. Patrick Michael Duffy, Senior District Judge. (6:09-cv-00850-PDM) Submitted: August 19, 2010 Decided: August 30, 2010 Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Benny Barfield, Appellant Pro Se. William Henry Davidson, II, Joel Steve Hughes, Kenneth Paul Woodington, DAVIDSON, MORRISON & LINDEMANN, PA, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Case: 10-6726 Document: 16 Date Filed: 08/30/2010 Page: 2 PER CURIAM: Benny Barfield appeals the district court's order denying relief on his complaint. this case to a magistrate judge The district court referred pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. 636(b)(1)(B) (West 2006 & Supp. 2010). recommended that relief be denied and The magistrate judge advised Barfield that failure to file timely 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. Cir. 1985); has see Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th also Thomas v. Arn, review 474 by U.S. 140 (1985). to file Barfield waived appellate failing objections after receiving proper notice. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. legal before We dispense with oral argument because the facts and contentions the court are and adequately argument presented not in aid the the materials decisional would process. AFFIRMED 2

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?