Martin Avila v. Edgefield Federal Prison

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 0:10-cv-02370-HMH Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998780500]. Mailed to: Avila. [11-7297]

Appeal: 11-7297

Document: 10

Date Filed: 02/03/2012

Page: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-7297

MARTIN AVILA,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
EDGEFIELD FEDERAL PRISON; MRS. MARY MITCHELL, Warden; MR.
ACOSTA, Assist Warden; MR. COLLIE, Capt; MR. CLARK, Lt; MR.
HOLLET, Lt; MR. NEAL, C Unit Manager; MR. H. KROGER, III, B
Unit Manager; MRS. S. CHEEK, B Case Manager; MR. J. BRYANT,
B Counselor; MR. JOHNSON, C Counselor; MR. SANTIAGO, SIS;
MR. ROPER, Unit Officer; MR. UPSON, Unit Officer; MR.
FLORES, Unit Officer; MR. KATE, Unit Officer; MRS. MARTIN,
Unit Officer; MR. GREEN, Unit Officer; MR. EVANS, Unit
Officer; MRS. JACKSON, Unit Manager; MR. FALLEN, Assist
Warden; MR. S. SMITH, Recreation; MR. T. NIXON; MR. J.
SULLIVAN; MR. SPARK; MRS. LATHROP; MR. L. MORGAN, Unit
Officer; MR. WILSON, Unit Officer; MR. BURKETT, B; MR.
BURKETT; MRS. V. KEPNER, Education,
Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Rock Hill.
Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior
District Judge. (0:10-cv-02370-HMH)

Submitted:

January 20, 2012

Decided:

February 3, 2012

Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Appeal: 11-7297

Document: 10

Date Filed: 02/03/2012

Page: 2 of 3

Martin Avila, Appellant Pro Se. Marshall Prince, II, Assistant
United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

Appeal: 11-7297

Document: 10

Date Filed: 02/03/2012

Page: 3 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Martin

Avila

appeals

the

district

court’s

order

accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying
Avila’s Fed. R. Civ. P. 15 motions seeking leave to amend his
complaint.

Although

we

find

that

Avila’s

objections

to

the

magistrate judge’s report were sufficient to preserve appellate
review of his claims, we have reviewed the record and find no
reversible error.

See Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46

(4th Cir. 1985).

Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated

by the district court.

Avila v. Edgefield Fed. Prison, No.

0:10-cv-02370-HMH (D.S.C. July 21, 2011).

We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
presented in the materials before the court and argument would
not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED

3