Steve Lester v. Karen Ratigan

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 4:12-cv-00016-TMC. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998976568]. Mailed to: Steven Lester. [12-6661]

Appeal: 12-6661

Doc: 10

Filed: 11/07/2012

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-6661

STEVE LESTER,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
KAREN C. RATIGAN, State Assistant Attorney General,
Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence.
Timothy M. Cain, District Judge.
(4:12-cv-00016-TMC)

Submitted:

November 2, 2012

Decided:

November 7, 2012

Before WILKINSON, KEENAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Steven Lester, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 12-6661

Doc: 10

Filed: 11/07/2012

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Steve

Lester

appeals

the

district

court’s

order

dismissing without prejudice as frivolous 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

&

relief

Supp.
be

2012).

denied

The

and

magistrate

advised

Lester

judge

recommended

that

that

failure

file

to

specific objections to this recommendation could waive appellate
review of a district court order based upon the recommendation.
The

district

court

adopted

the

magistrate

judge’s

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

have

noncompliance.

been

warned

of

the

consequences

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

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

waived

objections

appellate
after

review

receiving

by

proper

failing

to

notice.

affirm the judgment of the district court.
oral

argument

adequately

of

because

presented

in

the
the

facts

and

materials

file

Lester
specific

Accordingly,

we

We dispense with

legal
before

contentions
the

court

are
and

argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
2