Eric Rieb v. Warden Stevenson
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:11-cv-00425-RMG Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999074249]. Mailed to: Eric Andrew Rieb. [12-8102]
Appeal: 12-8102
Doc: 15
Filed: 03/28/2013
Pg: 1 of 3
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-8102
ERIC ANDREW RIEB,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
WARDEN ROBERT M. STEVENSON,
CAPTAIN PERCY JONES,
III;
LT.
EDWARD
HAMBRICK;
Defendants – Appellees,
and
BROAD RIVER CORR INST PROPERTY CONTROL,
Defendant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Aiken.
Richard Mark Gergel, District Judge.
(1:11-cv-00425-RMG)
Submitted:
March 26, 2013
Decided:
March 28, 2013
Before DUNCAN, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Eric Andrew Rieb, Appellant Pro Se. Erin Mary Farrell, MCKAY,
CAUTHEN, SETTANA & STUBLEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for
Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Appeal: 12-8102
Doc: 15
Filed: 03/28/2013
Pg: 2 of 3
PER CURIAM
Eric Rieb appeals the district court’s order denying
his motion for an extension of time to file objections to the
magistrate
order
judge’s
adopting
report
the
and
recommendation;
recommendation
of
the
and
the
magistrate
court’s
judge,
granting summary judgment to the Defendants on Rieb’s 42 U.S.C. §
1983 (2006) action.
We affirm.
With regard to the order denying an extension of time
to object to the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, we
have reviewed the record and find no abuse of discretion.
See
Carefirst of Md., Inc. v. Carefirst Pregnancy Ctrs., Inc., 334
F.3d
390,
396
(4th
Cir.
2003)
(stating
standard
of
review).
Accordingly, we affirm the court’s order.
Turning to the order adopting the magistrate judge’s
report, 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 summary judgment be
granted to the Defendants on Rieb’s § 1983 action and advised
Rieb that failure to timely file specific written objections to
this recommendation would 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
2
Appeal: 12-8102
Doc: 15
Filed: 03/28/2013
Pg: 3 of 3
parties have been warned of the consequences of noncompliance.
Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985); see also
Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985).
Rieb has waived appellate
review by failing to timely file objections after receiving fair
notice.
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment.
We
dispense
with
oral
argument
because
the
facts
and
legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
3
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?