Kevin Harbin v. South Carolina DOC

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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]

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UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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