Jesse James v. Barry Faile
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion for other relief [999607375-2] Originating case number: 1:13-cv-00211-DCN Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999750745]. Mailed to: James. [15-6689]
Appeal: 15-6689
Doc: 31
Filed: 02/08/2016
Pg: 1 of 4
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-6689
JESSE M. JAMES,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
SHERIFF BARRY FAILE; MRS. DEBORAH HORNE,
Defendants – Appellees,
and
LANCASTER COUNTY DETENTION CENTER, in Lancaster, SC,
Defendant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Aiken.
David C. Norton, District Judge.
(1:13-cv-00211-DCN)
Submitted:
January 26, 2016
Decided:
February 8, 2016
Before WILKINSON and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jesse M. James, Appellant Pro Se.
David Allan DeMasters,
DAVIDSON & LINDEMANN, PA, Columbia, South Carolina, for
Appellees.
Appeal: 15-6689
Doc: 31
Filed: 02/08/2016
Pg: 2 of 4
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
Appeal: 15-6689
Doc: 31
Filed: 02/08/2016
Pg: 3 of 4
PER CURIAM:
Jesse
M.
James
appeals
the
magistrate
judge’s
orders
denying the appointment of counsel, the district court’s order
granting his motion for an extension of time to file objections
but warning that no further extensions would be granted, and the
district
court’s
order
adopting
the
magistrate
judge’s
recommendation and denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012)
complaint.
We affirm.
With regard to the nondispositive orders James challenges
on appeal, we have reviewed the record and find no abuse of
discretion.
See Carefirst of Md., Inc. v. Carefirst Pregnancy
Ctrs., Inc., 334 F.3d 390, 396 (4th Cir. 2003) (reviewing order
denying an extension); Miller v. Simmons, 814 F.2d 962, 966 (4th
Cir.
1987)
(reviewing
order
denying
appointment
of
counsel).
Turning to the dismissal order, 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 James 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
consequences of noncompliance.
have
been
warned
of
the
Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841,
3
Appeal: 15-6689
Doc: 31
Filed: 02/08/2016
Pg: 4 of 4
845-46 (4th Cir. 1985); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140
(1985).
James
has
waived
appellate
review
of
the
district
court’s dismissal order by failing to file objections.
Accordingly,
breakdown
of
we
affirm.
security
logs.
We
We
deny
James’
dispense
with
motion
oral
for
a
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
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?