Leroy McKenzie v. Lieutenant Raines

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-6562
LEROY ALVIN MCKENZIE,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
LIEUTENANT RAINES, SCDC; OFFICER VON MUITIS, SCDC; OFFICER
SEALY, SCDC; LIEUTENANT MCGHEE, SCDC; OFFICER WANDA YOUNG,
individually and in their official capacities; HONORABLE
WILLIAM ROBERT BYARS, JR., Director SCDC,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Greenville. Timothy M. Cain, District Judge.
(6:11-cv-00559-TMC)
Submitted: October 11, 2012 Decided: October 15, 2012
Before KING, DUNCAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Leroy Alvin McKenzie, Appellant Pro Se. Alissa Robyn Collins,
James Albert Stuckey, Jr., STUCKEY LAW OFFICES, PA, Charleston,
South Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Leroy Alvin McKenzie appeals the district court’s
orders adopting the recommendations of the magistrate judge and
denying his motions under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(f) and for a
declaratory judgment and granting summary judgment to Defendants
on his claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990
(“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12131-65 (2006), and the Rehabilitation
Act (“RA”), 29 U.S.C. § 794(a) (2006), and the court’s
subsequent order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion to
alter or amend judgment. We affirm.
On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised
in the appellant’s brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because
McKenzie’s informal brief does not challenge the district
court’s denial of his motion seeking a declaratory judgment,
McKenzie has forfeited appellate review of that ruling.
With respect to the district court’s ruling adopting
the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying
McKenzie’s Rule 56(f) motion and its order adopting the
recommendation of the magistrate judge and granting summary
judgment to Defendants on his claims under the ADA and the RA,
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. Diamond v.
2
Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315-16
(4th Cir. 2005); Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46
(4th Cir. 1985). McKenzie has waived appellate review of that
ruling and order by failing to file specific objections after
receiving proper notice. *
We further find no abuse of discretion in the district
court’s denial of McKenzie’s Rule 59(e) motion to alter or amend
judgment, Robinson v. Wix Filtration Corp., 599 F.3d 403, 407
(4th Cir. 2010) (stating standard of review), because McKenzie
did not rely on a change in controlling law, present new
evidence, or identify a clear error of law. See Pac. Ins. Co.
v. Am. Nat’l Fire Ins. Co., 148 F.3d 396, 403 (4th Cir. 1998)
(listing the three circumstances under which Rule 59(e) relief
may be granted).
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s orders.
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
*
McKenzie did raise a specific objection to the magistrate
judge’s jurisdiction over his case, but he does not press this
issue on appeal.
3