Kevin Harbin v. South Carolina DOC


UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 6:13-cv-01973-JMC Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999611871]. Mailed to: Kevin Harbin. [15-6555]

Download PDF
Appeal: 15-6555 Doc: 26 Filed: 06/30/2015 Pg: 1 of 3 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-6555 KEVIN HARBIN, a/k/a Kevin Habin, Plaintiff - Appellant, and AUGUSTUS MCBETH; ROBERT HUTTO; JOHN HENRY HART; KYRIE JOHNSON; MICHAEL YOUNG; RAS’KHAFRE; JARVIS GIBBS; MARKEY LINEN; DARVIN ALLEN; CARLOS ROLIND; CHRISTOPHER GALE; HENRY J. DUKES; KENNETH WHITE; LESHAUN BYRD; RAFI-AL JAMI; RASCHAUN COLBERT; WILLIAM SIMS, Plaintiffs, v. SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; WILLIAM R. BYARS, JR., Director; JOHN H. CARMICHAEL, JR., Deputy Director; GARY A. BOYD, Director of Inmate Service; LLOYD J. ROBERTS, Chief Chaplain of Inmate Service; OMAR SHAHEED, Senior Muslim Chaplain of Islam Affairs; TAMIR ABDUL MUTAKABLUIR, Islam Affairs; REGINALD CRUZ, Chaplain of Inmate Service; GLENN SHERMAN, Chaplain of Inmate Service; DAVID TATARSKY, General Counsel; SANDRA BOWIE, Policy Development; J. MICHAEL BROWN, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. J. Michelle Childs, District Judge. (6:13-cv-01973-JMC) Submitted: June 25, 2015 Decided: June 30, 2015 Appeal: 15-6555 Doc: 26 Filed: 06/30/2015 Pg: 2 of 3 Before GREGORY, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Kevin L. Harbin, Appellant Pro Se. Andrew Lindemann, DAVIDSON & LINDEMANN, PA, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 Appeal: 15-6555 Doc: 26 Filed: 06/30/2015 Pg: 3 of 3 PER CURIAM: Keven Harbin appeals the district court’s relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint. order denying The district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2012). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Harbin that failure to file timely objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the recommendation. 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). Harbin has waived appellate review by failing to file objections specific after receiving proper notice. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. 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?