Michael Sanders v. Joseph Battle
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 6:11-cv-02734-GRA Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998960143]. Mailed to: Michael Sanders. [12-7312]
Appeal: 12-7312
Doc: 15
Filed: 10/16/2012
Pg: 1 of 2
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-7312
MICHAEL E. SANDERS,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
JOSEPH BATTLES, administrator for the Abbeville County
Detention Center in his official and individual capacity;
CHARLES GOODWIN, Sheriff in his official and individual
capacity; LEIGH ANN MCMAHAN,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Greenville.
G. Ross Anderson, Jr., Senior
District Judge. (6:11-cv-02734-GRA)
Submitted:
October 11, 2012
Decided:
October 16, 2012
Before KING, DUNCAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Michael E. Sanders, Appellant Pro Se. Russell W. Harter, Jr.,
CHAPMAN, HARTER & GROVES, PA, Greenville, South Carolina;
Elliott T. Halio, HALIO & HALIO, Charleston, South Carolina, for
Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Appeal: 12-7312
Doc: 15
Filed: 10/16/2012
Pg: 2 of 2
PER CURIAM:
Michael E. Sanders 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. 2012).
The
magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised
Sanders
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
specific
recommendation
is
objections
necessary
to
to
a
preserve
appellate review of the substance of that recommendation when
the
parties
have
noncompliance.
Cir.
1985);
Sanders
objections
warned
of
the
consequences
of
Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th
see
has
been
also
waived
after
Thomas
v.
appellate
receiving
Arn,
474
review
by
proper
U.S.
140
failing
notice.
(1985).
to
file
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
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?