UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-1891
PHILLIP ANDREW BRIDGES,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
SIMPSONVILLE POLICE DEPARTMENT AGENCY; JIMMY DALE LOGAN;
BLAINE HUDSON; AARON EDWARDS, Individually and in their
Official Capacities,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Greenville. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., Senior
District Judge. (6:12-cv-01198-GRA)
Submitted: December 13, 2012 Decided: January 2, 2013
Before DAVIS, KEENAN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Phillip Andrew Bridges, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM
Phillip Andrew Bridges appeals the district court’s
order denying his motion for an extension of time to file
objections to the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation;
the court’s order adopting the recommendation of the magistrate
judge, dismissing without prejudice Bridges’ 42 U.S.C. § 1983
(2006) complaint, and denying the motion to appoint counsel; and
the court’s order denying reconsideration. 1 We affirm.
With regard to the order denying an extension of time
to object to the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation,
we have reviewed the record and find no abuse of discretion.
See Carefirst of Md., Inc. v. Carefirst Pregnancy Ctrs., Inc.,
334 F.3d 390, 396 (4th Cir. 2003) (stating standard of review).
Accordingly, we affirm the court’s order.
Turning to the order adopting the magistrate judge’s
report and denying the appointment of counsel, the district
court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28
1
Although the district court should have construed the
motion as one filed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60, we conclude
that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying
relief and affirm the court’s order. See Heyman v. M.L. Mktg.
Co., 116 F.3d 91, 94 (4th Cir. 1997) (stating standard of
review); CNF Constructors, Inc. v. Donohoe Constr. Co., 57 F.3d
395, 401 (4th Cir. 1995) (finding that where, as here, motion
sought reconsideration of legal issue already addressed in
earlier ruling, motion was not authorized by Rule 60(b) and
rejection of motion was not abuse of discretion).
2
U.S.C.A. § 636(b)(1)(B) (West 2006 & Supp. 2012). The
magistrate judge recommended that Bridges’ § 1983 complaint be
dismissed without prejudice and advised Bridges that failure to
timely file specific written objections to this recommendation
would 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).
Bridges has waived appellate review by failing to file
objections after receiving fair notice.
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. 2
We deny Bridges’ request for the appointment of counsel 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
2
To the extent Bridges raises new claims for the first time
on appeal, we decline to address them. See Muth v. United
States, 1 F.3d 246, 250 (4th Cir. 1993).
3