Don Boyd v. Angelica Textile Service

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 3:12-cv-00334-JFA Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999010018]. Mailed to: Don Boyd. [12-7343]

Appeal: 12-7343

Doc: 8

Filed: 12/26/2012

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-7343

DON BOYD,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
ANGELICA TEXTILE SERVICES INC; FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP;
REYBURN W. LOMINACK, III; C. FREDERICK W. MANNING, II; STATE
OF SOUTH CAROLINA, South Carolina Human Affairs Commission;
H. RONALD STANLEY, individually and proprietor; UNITED
STATES OF AMERICA, United States District Court for the
District of South Carolina; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Columbia. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., District
Judge. (3:12-cv-00334-JFA)

Submitted:

December 20, 2012

Decided:

December 26, 2012

Before KING and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Don Boyd, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 12-7343

Doc: 8

Filed: 12/26/2012

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Don Boyd appeals the district court’s order adopting
the

magistrate

action
review.

against

judge’s

recommendation

Defendants

after

a

28

to

dismiss

U.S.C.

his

§ 1915

civil
(2006)

On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised

in Boyd’s informal brief.

See 4th Cir. R. 34(b).

Because

Boyd’s informal brief does not challenge the district court’s
dispositive holdings, Boyd has forfeited appellate review of the
district court’s order.
court’s judgment. *

Accordingly, we affirm the district

See Boyd v. Angelica Textile Servs., No.

3:12-cv-00334-JFA (D.S.C. June 15, 2012).

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

*

Because the timely filing of specific objections to a
magistrate judge’s recommendation is necessary to preserve
appellate review of a district court order adopting that
recommendation when the parties have been warned of the
consequences of noncompliance, see Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d
841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985), Boyd also waived appellate review
over the district court’s order by failing to file specific
objections after receiving proper notice.

2