UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-7551
CHARLES EDWARD THOMAS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; JON OZMINT, Former
Prison Director; MEDICAL DIVISION; FINANCIAL RECORDS, In
their individual and official capacities,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Rock Hill. David C. Norton, District Judge.
(0:14-cv-00302-DCN)
Submitted: July 20, 2015 Decided: September 21, 2015
Before SHEDD, KEENAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Charles Edward Thomas, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Charles Edward Thomas appeals the district court’s order
adopting the magistrate judge’s recommendation to dismiss, after
a 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (2012) review, Thomas’s claims brought
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012), the Americans with
Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101-12300 (2012), and the
Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, 42
U.S.C. §§ 1320d–1320d-9 (2012), and declining to exercise
supplemental jurisdiction over Thomas’s state law claims.
Thomas has also filed with this Court several motions seeking
additional relief. We deny the pending motions and affirm the
district court’s judgment.
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). Moreover, we limit our review to
the issues raised in the appellant’s informal brief. See 4th
Cir. R. 34(b). Thomas waived appellate review of the district
court’s dispositive holdings by failing to file specific
objections to the magistrate judge’s dispositive recommendations
after receiving proper notice, and by failing to challenge the
district court’s dispositive holdings in his informal brief.
2
Accordingly, we deny the pending motions and affirm the
district court’s judgment. 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
3