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UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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
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?