Steve Lester v. Perry Correctional Institution

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 4:11-cv-01388-TMC. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998780242]. Mailed to: Steve Lester. [11-7491]

Appeal: 11-7491

Document: 9

Date Filed: 02/03/2012

Page: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-7491

STEVE LESTER,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
PERRY CORRECTIONAL
WREN; CPT RANDAL,

INSTITUTION;

OFFICER

FISH;

OFFICER

AL

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence.
Timothy M. Cain, District Judge.
(4:11-cv-01388-TMC)

Submitted:

January 31, 2012

Decided:

February 3, 2012

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Steven Lester, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 11-7491

Document: 9

Date Filed: 02/03/2012

Page: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Steven

Lester

appeals

the

district

court’s

order

denying relief without prejudice 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.

2011).

The

magistrate

judge

recommended

that

relief be denied and advised Lester 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

judge’s

filing

of

recommendation

specific
is

objections

necessary

to

to

a

preserve

appellate review of the substance of that recommendation when
the

parties

noncompliance.

have

been

warned

of

the

consequences

of

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

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

Lester

has waived appellate review by failing to file 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

adequately

and

argument

presented

would

not

in
aid

the
the

materials
decisional

process.
AFFIRMED

2