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UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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]

Download PDF
Appeal: 14-7419 Doc: 19 Filed: 03/04/2015 Pg: 1 of 4 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-7419 DENNIS TEMPLE, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. OCONEE COUNTY; SHERIFF JAMES SINGLETON; MAJOR STEVE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 Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 Appeal: 14-7419 Doc: 19 Filed: 03/04/2015 Pg: 3 of 4 PER CURIAM: Dennis M. Temple appeals from the district court’s judgment denying relief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?