Jessie Frederick v. John MaGill

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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]

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UNPUBLISHED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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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