Dennis Temple v. James Singleton

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 8:14-cv-04832-JFA. Copies to all parties and the district court. [999703194]. Mailed to: Dennis Temple. [15-7253]

Appeal: 15-7253

Doc: 12

Filed: 11/20/2015

Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-7253

DENNIS MAURICE TEMPLE, a/k/a Dennis Temple,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
SHERIFF JAMES SINGLETON, in his individual capacity; CAPTAIN
GREG REED, in his individual capacity; SERGEANT SCOTT
ARNOLD, in his individual capacity; SERGEANT JERRY MOSS, in
his individual capacity; SOLICITOR CHRISSY T. ADAMS, in her
individual capacity; ASSISTANT SOLICITOR LINDSEY S. SIMMONS,
in her individual capacity; ANDERSON-INDEPENDENT NEWSPAPER,
INC.; REPORTER JOHN DOE, a/k/a Don Kausler; DAILY JOURNAL
NEWSPAPER, INC.; REPORTER ANDREW MOORE, in his individual
capacity;
REPORTER
NORMAN
CANNON,
in
his
individual
capacity; GREENVILLE NEWSPAPER, INC.; PUBLISHER STEVEN R.
BRANDT, in his individual capacity; EDITOR JOHN PITTMAN, in
his individual capacity; FOX CAROLINA NEWS, INC.; REPORTER
CODY ALCORN, in his individual capacity; REPORTER DIANA
WATSON, in her individual capacity; NEWS 13, INC.; REPORTER
DARCEL GRIMES, in his individual capacity; REPORTER TAMMY
WATFORD, in her individual capacity; NEWS 7, INC.; REPORTER
GORDON DILL, in his individual capacity; REPORTER TOM
CRABTREE, in his individual capacity; NEWS 4, INC.; REPORTER
CAROL GOLDSMITH, in her individual capacity; REPORTER NIGEL
ROBERTSON, in his individual capacity; OCONEE COUNTY,
Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Anderson.
Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., Senior
District Judge. (8:14-cv-04832-JFA)

Submitted:

November 17, 2015

Decided:

November 20, 2015

Appeal: 15-7253

Doc: 12

Filed: 11/20/2015

Pg: 2 of 4

Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Dennis M. Temple, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

Appeal: 15-7253

Doc: 12

Filed: 11/20/2015

Pg: 3 of 4

PER CURIAM:
Dennis

Maurice

Temple

appeals

from

the

district

court’s

judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) civil rights
action.

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 the complaint be dismissed
and

advised

Temple

that

failure

to

file

timely

and

specific

objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review
of a district court judgment 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

United States v.

Benton,

(holding

consequences

“general

finding

that
is

a

523

insufficient

F.3d

424,

objection”
to

of
428

to

preserve

a

a

noncompliance.
(4th

Cir.

magistrate

claim

for

2008)

judge’s

appellate

review); Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d
310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (“We have long held that the Federal
Magistrates

Act

ignore

right

without
circuit

his

cannot
to

imperiling
court

of

be

file

his

interpreted
objections

right

to

appeals.”

to

with

raise

the

(internal

permit
the

a

party

district

objections
quotation

to

court
in

the

marks,

alterations, and ellipsis omitted)); Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d
841, 846 (4th Cir. 1985) (“[W]e hold that a pro se litigant must
3

Appeal: 15-7253

receive

Doc: 12

fair

Filed: 11/20/2015

notification

of

Pg: 4 of 4

the

consequences

of

failure

to

object to a magistrate’s report before such a procedural default
will result in waiver of the right of appeal.”).
waived
filing

appellate

review

nonspecific

of

the

objections

district
to

the

court’s

Temple has
judgment

magistrate

recommendation after receiving proper notice.

by

judge’s

Accordingly, we

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

4