Curtis Hill v. Jon Ozmint

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion for transcript at government expense [998410218-2]. Originating case number: 6:09-cv-00800-HMH. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998443157] [10-7106]

Curtis Hill v. Jon Ozmint

Doc. 0

Case: 10-7106 Document: 16

Date Filed: 10/12/2010

Page: 1

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-7106 CURTIS RENA HILL, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. DIRECTOR JON OZMINT, South Carolina Department of Corrections; WARDEN ROBERT STEVENSON, Broad River Correctional Institution; KAREN Y. MCCULLOGH, LPN; MARIE A. SHERMAN, LPN; DONALD R. SAMPSON, Physician II, Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior District Judge. (6:09-cv-00800-HMH) Submitted: September 30, 2010 Decided: October 12, 2010

Before NIEMEYER, AGEE, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Curtis Rena Hill, Appellant Pro Se. Janet Brooks Holmes, Daniel Roy Settana, Jr., MCKAY, CAUTHEN, SETTANA & STUBLEY, PA, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Dockets.Justia.com

Case: 10-7106 Document: 16

Date Filed: 10/12/2010

Page: 2

PER CURIAM: Curtis Rena Hill appeals the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint. The

district 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 judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Hill 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.

Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Hill

Cir. 1985); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985).

has waived appellate review by failing to file objections after receiving proper notice. the district court. We deny Hill's motion for transcripts at government expense and 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 Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of

would

process. AFFIRMED 2