Benny Barfield v. Mark Sanford

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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]

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UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-6726 BENNY BARFIELD, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. HONORABLE MARK SANFORD, Governor; JOHN MCGILL,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 Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Dockets.Justia.com

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