Lewis v. Eagleton , 404 F. App'x 740 ( 2010 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-6396
SAMUEL J. LEWIS,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
WARDEN EAGLETON, Individual and official capacities; WARDEN
CHAVIS, Associate Warden, Individual and official
capacities; MS. WEATHERFORD, Individual and official
capacities; MR. SPIRES, Individual and official capacities;
LIEUTENANT HIPP, Individual and official capacities; MS.
HAGE, Nurse Supervisor, Individual and official capacities;
OFFICER CYPRESS; OFFICER MATTHEWS, Individual and official
capacities; ECI MEDICAL STAFF, Individual and official
capacities,
Defendants – Appellees,
and
SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,
Defendant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., Senior
District Judge. (4:08-cv-02800-GRA)
Submitted: November 10, 2010 Decided: December 9, 2010
Before WILKINSON, DUNCAN, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Samuel J. Lewis, Appellant Pro Se. William Henry Davidson, II,
Lawrence S. Kerr, DAVIDSON & LINDEMANN, PA, Columbia, South
Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
Samuel Jerome Lewis appeals the district court’s order
accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying
relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint. Lewis also
appeals the magistrate judge’s denials of his motions to appoint
counsel. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible
error in the denial of the motions to appoint counsel.
Accordingly, we affirm those orders. Lewis v. Eagleton, No.
4:08-cv-02800-GRA (D.S.C. Feb. 20, 2009; Mar. 9, 2009).
Turning to the district court’s order denying § 1983
relief, the court referred this case to a magistrate judge
pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 636(b)(1)(B) (West 2006 & Supp. 2010).
The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and
advised Lewis that failure to file timely and specific
objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review
of a district court order 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 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). Lewis
has waived appellate review by failing to file specific
3
objections after receiving proper notice. Accordingly, we
affirm the judgment of the district court.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
AFFIRMED
4