Dennis Temple v. Oconee County
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to amend/correct [999476619-2] Originating case number: 6:13-cv-00144-JFA Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999539723]. Mailed to: Dennis Temple. [14-7419]
Appeal: 14-7419
Doc: 19
Filed: 03/04/2015
Pg: 1 of 4
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-7419
DENNIS TEMPLE,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
OCONEE COUNTY; SHERIFF JAMES SINGLETON; MAJOR STEVE PRUITT;
LIETENUANT FOSTERVOLD; SERGEANT DALLAS SHIRLEY; OFFICER
ROBERT WHITFIELD; OFFICER DAVID WALD; OFFICER WAYNE HILL;
OFFICER TIM WILLIAMSON; OFFICER RAY ARMSTRONG; OFFICER JOY
HUNTER;
OFFICER
SCOTT
ARNOLD;
SERGEANT
KEVIN
CAIN;
LIEUTENANT GREG REED, in their individual and official
capacity; OFFICER TRAVIS OVERTON; OFFICER BEVERLEY SIEGLER;
OFFICER CINDY BECKETT; SERGEANT ROGER FOSTER; SERGEANT
BRENDA WALLIS; SERGEANT RENITA ROHLETTER; OFFICER LORI
MCALLISTER; OFFICER RUDY STEELE; OFFICER ZACHARY LOMBARDI;
OFFICER LISA HERBERT; OFFICER LINDSEY MCKINNEY; OFFICER
JASON ADDIS; OFFICER GENE EVANS; OFFICER RICK OAKLEY;
OFFICER JONATHAN JERDE; OFFICER JOHN CHARLES; OFFICER MARIA
MELENDEZ; OFFICER DENISE CHASTEEN; OFFICER TYRONE MERCK;
OFFICER PATRINA BLASSINGAME,
Defendants - Appellees,
and
OFFICER DIXIE,
Defendant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Greenville. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., Senior
District Judge. (6:13-cv-00144-JFA)
Submitted:
February 24, 2015
Decided:
March 4, 2015
Appeal: 14-7419
Doc: 19
Filed: 03/04/2015
Pg: 2 of 4
Before GREGORY and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Dennis Temple, Appellant Pro Se.
James Victor McDade, DOYLE,
O’ROURKE, TATE & MCDADE, PA, Anderson, South Carolina, for
Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
Appeal: 14-7419
Doc: 19
Filed: 03/04/2015
Pg: 3 of 4
PER CURIAM:
Dennis M. Temple appeals from the district court’s judgment
denying
relief
magistrate
appoint
in
his
judge’s
counsel
recommendation
and
of
the
the
respect
appoint
counsel,
in the order.
action,
order
district
magistrate
to
challenging
denying
court’s
judge
his
order
and
motion
adopting
granting
the
to
the
summary
We affirm.
the
we
reversible error.
rights
interlocutory
judgment to Defendants. *
With
civil
have
order
denying
reviewed
Temple’s
the
record
motion
and
find
to
no
Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated
Temple v. Oconee Cnty., No. 6:13-cv-00144-JFA
(D.S.C. Sept. 17, 2013).
With respect to the district court’s order adopting the
recommendation
of
the
magistrate
judge
and
granting
summary
judgment to Defendants, the timely filing of specific objections
to a magistrate judge’s recommendation is necessary to preserve
appellate review of the substance of that recommendation when
the
parties
have
noncompliance.
(4th Cir.
2008)
been
United
warned
States
(holding
v.
that
*
a
of
the
Benton,
“general
consequences
523
F.3d
424,
objection”
to
of
428
a
The district court referred the summary judgment motion to
a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2012).
Temple
filed
objections
to
the
magistrate
judge’s
recommendation.
3
Appeal: 14-7419
Doc: 19
Filed: 03/04/2015
Pg: 4 of 4
magistrate judge’s finding is insufficient to preserve a claim
for appellate review); Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins.
Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (“We have long held that
the Federal Magistrates Act cannot be interpreted to permit a
party to ignore his right to file objections with the district
court without imperiling his right to raise the objections in
the
circuit
court
of
appeals.”
(internal
quotation
marks,
alterations, and ellipsis omitted)); Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d
841, 846 (4th Cir. 1985) (“[W]e hold that a pro se litigant must
receive
fair
notification
of
the
consequences
of
failure
to
object to a magistrate’s report before such a procedural default
will result in waiver of the right of appeal.”).
Temple has
waived appellate review of the district court’s order by filing
untimely and largely nonspecific objections to the magistrate
judge’s
recommendation
after
receiving
proper
notice.
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order.
We deny Temple’s motion to amend or correct the record and
dispense
with
contentions
are
oral
argument
adequately
because
presented
in
the
the
facts
and
legal
materials
before
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
4
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?