Thorpe v. Sewell ( 1996 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 95-7391
KHALIL ALI AL-MUNIN IBN-THORPE, a/k/a Kahill
Kashon Thorpe,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
JAMES SEWELL,
Defendant - Appellee,
and
STANLEY R. WITKOWSKI, Warden, Perry Correc-
tional Institution, in his individual and
official capacity; CHARLES BROCK, Associate
Warden, Perry Correctional Institution, in his
individual and official capacity; JOHN DOE
SEWELL, Captain for Perry Correctional Insti-
tution in his individual and official capac-
ity; FLORA BOYD; JOHN DOE FUNDERBURK, Captain
for Evans Correctional Institution, in his
individual and official capacity,
Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Greenville. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., District
Judge. (CA-94-1321-6-3AK)
Submitted: January 18, 1996 Decided: February 5, 1996
Before HAMILTON and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and CHAPMAN, Senior
Circuit Judge.
2
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Khalil Ali Al-Munin Ibn-Thorpe, Appellant Pro Se. Ronald Keith
Wray, II, GIBBES & CLARKSON, P.A., Greenville, South Carolina, for
Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying
relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988) complaint. We have reviewed
the record and the district court's opinion accepting the magis-
trate judge's recommendation and find no reversible error. Accord-
ingly, we affirm substantially on the reasoning of the district
court. Thorpe v. Sewell, No. CA-94-1321-6-3AK (D.S.C. Aug. 1,
1995). Finally, to the extent that Appellant may have raised a
claim that he was denied the right to practice his religion while
on segregation, he waived his right to appeal any error by the
district court by failing to object to the magistrate judge's
report regarding this claim. See Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841,
845-46 (4th Cir. 1985). We dispense with oral argument because the
facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the mate-
rials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
AFFIRMED
3