Dennis Temple v. Oconee County

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-7419
DENNIS TEMPLE,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
OCONEE COUNTY; SHERIFF JAMES SINGLETON; MAJOR STEVE PRUITT;
LIETENUANT FOSTERVOLD; SERGEANT DALLAS SHIRLEY; OFFICER
ROBERT WHITFIELD; OFFICER DAVID WALD; OFFICER WAYNE HILL;
OFFICER TIM WILLIAMSON; OFFICER RAY ARMSTRONG; OFFICER JOY
HUNTER; OFFICER SCOTT ARNOLD; SERGEANT KEVIN CAIN;
LIEUTENANT GREG REED, in their individual and official
capacity; OFFICER TRAVIS OVERTON; OFFICER BEVERLEY SIEGLER;
OFFICER CINDY BECKETT; SERGEANT ROGER FOSTER; SERGEANT
BRENDA WALLIS; SERGEANT RENITA ROHLETTER; OFFICER LORI
MCALLISTER; OFFICER RUDY STEELE; OFFICER ZACHARY LOMBARDI;
OFFICER LISA HERBERT; OFFICER LINDSEY MCKINNEY; OFFICER
JASON ADDIS; OFFICER GENE EVANS; OFFICER RICK OAKLEY;
OFFICER JONATHAN JERDE; OFFICER JOHN CHARLES; OFFICER MARIA
MELENDEZ; OFFICER DENISE CHASTEEN; OFFICER TYRONE MERCK;
OFFICER PATRINA BLASSINGAME,
Defendants - Appellees,
and
OFFICER DIXIE,
Defendant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Greenville. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., Senior
District Judge. (6:13-cv-00144-JFA)
Submitted: February 24, 2015 Decided: March 4, 2015
Before GREGORY and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Dennis Temple, Appellant Pro Se. James Victor McDade, DOYLE,
O’ROURKE, TATE & MCDADE, PA, Anderson, South Carolina, for
Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
Dennis M. Temple appeals from the district court’s judgment
denying relief in his civil rights action, challenging the
magistrate judge’s interlocutory order denying his motion to
appoint counsel and the district court’s order adopting the
recommendation of the magistrate judge and granting summary
judgment to Defendants. * We affirm.
With respect to the order denying Temple’s motion to
appoint counsel, we have reviewed the record and find no
reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated
in the order. Temple v. Oconee Cnty., No. 6:13-cv-00144-JFA
(D.S.C. Sept. 17, 2013).
With respect to the district court’s order adopting the
recommendation of the magistrate judge and granting summary
judgment to Defendants, 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. United States v. Benton, 523 F.3d 424, 428
(4th Cir. 2008) (holding that a “general objection” to a
*
The district court referred the summary judgment motion to
a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2012).
Temple filed objections to the magistrate judge’s
recommendation.
3
magistrate judge’s finding is insufficient to preserve a claim
for appellate review); Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins.
Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (“We have long held that
the Federal Magistrates Act cannot be interpreted to permit a
party to ignore his right to file objections with the district
court without imperiling his right to raise the objections in
the circuit court of appeals.” (internal quotation marks,
alterations, and ellipsis omitted)); Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d
841, 846 (4th Cir. 1985) (“[W]e hold that a pro se litigant must
receive fair notification of the consequences of failure to
object to a magistrate’s report before such a procedural default
will result in waiver of the right of appeal.”). Temple has
waived appellate review of the district court’s order by filing
untimely and largely nonspecific objections to the magistrate
judge’s recommendation after receiving proper notice.
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order.
We deny Temple’s motion to amend or correct the record and
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.
AFFIRMED
4