Jessie Frederick v. John MaGill


UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 0:15-cv-03399-HMH. Copies to all parties and the district court. [999973157]. Mailed to: Jessie Frederick. [16-7105]

Download PDF
Appeal: 16-7105 Doc: 11 Filed: 11/22/2016 Pg: 1 of 3 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-7105 JESSIE FREDERICK, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. JOHN MAGILL, Director, S.C.D.M.H., in his individual and official capacity; HOLLY SCATURO, Director - S.V.P.T.P, in her individual and official capacity; KIMBERLY POHOLCHUK, Program Coor. S.V.P.T.P., in her individual and official capacity; WARDEN STEVENSON, Warden, BRCI, in his individual and official capacity, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior District Judge. (0:15-cv-03399-HMH) Submitted: November 17, 2016 Before GREGORY, Judges. Chief Judge, Decided: and MOTZ and November 22, 2016 TRAXLER, Circuit Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jessie Frederick, Appellant Pro Se. William Henry Davidson, II, David Allan DeMasters, DAVIDSON & LINDEMANN, PA, Columbia, South Carolina; Eugene Matthews, RICHARDSON PLOWDEN, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees. Appeal: 16-7105 Doc: 11 Filed: 11/22/2016 Pg: 2 of 3 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 Appeal: 16-7105 Doc: 11 Filed: 11/22/2016 Pg: 3 of 3 PER CURIAM: Jessie Frederick seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint. 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 Frederick that the failure to file timely appellate objections review of a to this district recommendation court order could based waive 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). Frederick has waived appellate review by failing to file specific objections after receiving proper notice. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal. 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. DISMISSED 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?