Steven Lester v. Perry Correctional Institution

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 4:12-cv-00971-TMC. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998950350]. Mailed to: S. Lester. [12-7027]

Appeal: 12-7027

Doc: 10

Filed: 10/02/2012

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-7027

STEVEN LESTER,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
PERRY
CORRECTIONAL
ALWREN; CPT RANDAL,

INSTITUTION;

OFFICER

FISH;

OFFICER

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence.
Timothy M. Cain, District Judge.
(4:12-cv-00971-TMC)

Submitted:

September 27, 2012

Decided:

October 2, 2012

Before MOTZ, DAVIS, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Steven Lester, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 12-7027

Doc: 10

Filed: 10/02/2012

Pg: 2 of 3

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

&

relief

Supp.
be

2012).

denied

The

and

magistrate

advised

judge

recommended

that

that

failure

file

Lester

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

of

review

receiving

by

proper

failing
notice.

to

file

Lester
specific

Accordingly,

we

affirm the judgment of the district court.

∗

Although it adopted the magistrate judge’s report, the
district court elected to dismiss the action without prejudice
rather than with prejudice as the magistrate judge had
recommended.

2

Appeal: 12-7027

Doc: 10

Filed: 10/02/2012

Pg: 3 of 3

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

3