Joseph Pirela v. The State of Florida

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 5:17-cv-00160-D Copies to all parties and the district court. [1000178432]. Mailed to: Joseph Pirela. [17-1781]

Appeal: 17-1781

Doc: 7

Filed: 10/23/2017

Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-1781

JOSEPH PIRELA,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, Discrimination in Cases with No evidence and State
of Florida False Sentences; DENIS FONSECA, Miami Police officer; ANGEL
MIRANDA, Miami Police officer; DAVID COUNTIN, Miami Police officer;
DON SMITH, Miami Police officer; JOHN EDWARDS, Miami Police officer;
CITY OF MIAMI; THOMAS WILLIAMS; ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN; CARLOS
ALVAREZ; ALOYMA SANCHEZ; MERCEDES ALEMAN; ETHIEL
CALDERON; OLAIDA VILLALOBOS; IRVVIN GONZALEZ; BERNANDO
ROMAN; ALL DEFENDANTS IN CASE NO. 16-CV-24631; MIAMI
DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES; JACKSON HOSPITAL;
ATTORNEY GENERAL, Miami Florida,
Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
Raleigh. James C. Dever III, Chief District Judge. (5:17-cv-00160-D)

Submitted: October 19, 2017

Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Decided: October 23, 2017

Appeal: 17-1781

Doc: 7

Filed: 10/23/2017

Pg: 2 of 4

Joseph Pirela, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

Appeal: 17-1781

Doc: 7

Filed: 10/23/2017

Pg: 3 of 4

PER CURIAM:
Joseph Pirela appeals the district court’s order adopting the magistrate judge’s
recommendation to dismiss, as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (2012), Pirela’s
civil complaint against Defendants. On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised
in the Appellant’s brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Pirela’s informal brief does not challenge
the basis for the district court’s disposition and, thus, Pirela has forfeited appellate review
of the district court’s order. See Williams v. Giant Food Inc., 370 F.3d 423, 430 n.4 (4th
Cir. 2004).
In addition, Pirela’s complaint was referred to the magistrate judge pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2012), thereby requiring Pirela to file timely specific objections to
the recommendation in order to preserve appellate review of the substance of that
recommendation. See Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985). Pirela
was warned of the consequences of his failure to timely file specific objections.
Although Pirela filed objections to the magistrate judge’s recommendation, rather than
challenge the magistrate judge’s dispositive reasons for recommending dismissal of his
claims, Pirela’s objections merely restated the allegations underlying his claims. Thus,
we also conclude that Pirela has waived appellate review of the district court’s order
adopting the magistrate judge’s recommendation.
For these reasons, we affirm the district court’s judgment. See Pirela v. Florida,
No. 5:17-cv-00160-D (E.D.N.C. June 5, 2017). We dispense with oral argument because

3

Appeal: 17-1781

Doc: 7

Filed: 10/23/2017

Pg: 4 of 4

the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court
and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

4