Charles Thomas v. South Carolina Department

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion for other relief [999606779-2], denying Motion for other relief [999555285-2], denying Motion for other relief [999548264-2]; denying Motion to amend/correct [999527672-2], denying Motion to amend/correct [999517111-2] Originating case number: 0:14-cv-00302-DCN Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999663509]. Mailed to: Thomas. [14-7551]

Appeal: 14-7551

Doc: 31

Filed: 09/21/2015

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-7551

CHARLES EDWARD THOMAS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; JON OZMINT, Former
Prison Director; MEDICAL DIVISION; FINANCIAL RECORDS, In
their individual and official capacities,
Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Rock Hill. David C. Norton, District Judge.
(0:14-cv-00302-DCN)

Submitted:

July 20, 2015

Decided:

September 21, 2015

Before SHEDD, KEENAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Charles Edward Thomas, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-7551

Doc: 31

Filed: 09/21/2015

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Charles Edward Thomas appeals the district court’s order
adopting the magistrate judge’s recommendation to dismiss, after
a

28

U.S.C.

pursuant

to

Disabilities

§ 1915
42

(2012)

U.S.C.

Act,

42

review,

§ 1983

U.S.C.

Thomas’s

(2012),

the

§§ 12101-12300

claims

brought

Americans
(2012),

and

with
the

Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, 42
U.S.C.

§§ 1320d–1320d-9

supplemental

jurisdiction

(2012),
over

and

declining

Thomas’s

to
law

state

exercise
claims.

Thomas has also filed with this Court several motions seeking
additional relief.

We deny the pending motions and affirm the

district court’s judgment.
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
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).

Moreover, we limit our review to

the issues raised in the appellant’s informal brief.
Cir. R. 34(b).
court’s

See 4th

Thomas waived appellate review of the district

dispositive

holdings

by

failing

to

file

specific

objections to the magistrate judge’s dispositive recommendations
after receiving proper notice, and by failing to challenge the
district court’s dispositive holdings in his informal brief.
2

Appeal: 14-7551

Doc: 31

Filed: 09/21/2015

Pg: 3 of 3

Accordingly, we deny the pending motions and 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