UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-6216
ANTHONY FRED MARTIN,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
WILLIAM BYERS; WARDEN MICHAEL MCCALL; LIEUTENANT BRIAN
DEGEORGIS; DENNIS ARROWOOD; OFFICER BRANDON EICU; OFFICER
TRAVIS THURBER,
Defendants – Appellees,
and
MS. SYNDER, Grievance Coordinator,
Defendant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence. David C. Norton, District Judge.
(4:12-cv-02100-DCN)
Submitted: July 31, 2014 Decided: August 11, 2014
Before MOTZ, KEENAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Anthony Fred Martin, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Anthony Fred Martin, a South Carolina prisoner, filed
an action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) against a number
of Perry Correctional Institution employees. Martin’s complaint
alleged in part that on December 20, 2011, three prison
officials entered his cell to conduct a search, one of whom
masturbated in Martin’s presence and used excessive force in
restraining him (the “December 20 incident”). Martin raised
claims of Eighth Amendment violations against the officers and
several additional prison employees, as well as a claim of civil
conspiracy. Martin appeals the district court’s order adopting
the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation and granting
summary judgment in favor of the Defendants. We affirm.
The magistrate judge, to whom the district court
referred this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2012),
recommended that relief be denied and advised Martin that
failure to file timely objections to this recommendation could
waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the
recommendation. Such timely filing of specific objections 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,
155 (1985).
3
Martin’s objections to the report and recommendation
challenged the magistrate judge’s failure to address his
conspiracy claim. Because Martin failed to specifically object
to the magistrate judge’s recommendation regarding the remainder
of his claims after receiving notice of the consequences for
failure to do so, he has waived appellate review of such claims.
See In re Under Seal, 749 F.3d 276, 287 (4th Cir. 2014) (“[A]n
objection on one ground does not preserve objections based on
different grounds.” (internal quotation marks omitted)).
On appeal, Martin again challenges the district
court’s dismissal of his conspiracy claim. “To establish a
civil conspiracy under § 1983, Appellant[] must present evidence
that the Appellees acted jointly in concert and that some overt
act was done in furtherance of the conspiracy which resulted in
Appellant[’s] deprivation of a constitutional right . . . .”
Hinkle v. City of Clarksburg, 81 F.3d 416, 421 (4th Cir. 1996).
This is a “weighty burden.” Id. Furthermore, the factual
allegations must amount “to more than rank speculation and
conjecture” and must “give rise to an inference that each
alleged conspirator shared the same conspiratorial objective.”
Id. at 422. We agree with the district court that Martin’s
allegations fail to meet these standards, and therefore affirm
its resolution of the claim.
4
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order
granting summary judgment in favor of the Defendants. We
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
5