UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-6689
JESSE M. JAMES,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
SHERIFF BARRY FAILE; MRS. DEBORAH HORNE,
Defendants – Appellees,
and
LANCASTER COUNTY DETENTION CENTER, in Lancaster, SC,
Defendant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Aiken. David C. Norton, District Judge.
(1:13-cv-00211-DCN)
Submitted: January 26, 2016 Decided: February 8, 2016
Before WILKINSON and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jesse M. James, Appellant Pro Se. David Allan DeMasters,
DAVIDSON & LINDEMANN, PA, Columbia, South Carolina, for
Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
Jesse M. James appeals the magistrate judge’s orders
denying the appointment of counsel, the district court’s order
granting his motion for an extension of time to file objections
but warning that no further extensions would be granted, and the
district court’s order adopting the magistrate judge’s
recommendation and denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012)
complaint. We affirm.
With regard to the nondispositive orders James challenges
on appeal, 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) (reviewing order
denying an extension); Miller v. Simmons, 814 F.2d 962, 966 (4th
Cir. 1987) (reviewing order denying appointment of counsel).
Turning to the dismissal order, the district court referred this
case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B)
(2012). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied
and advised James that failure to file timely objections to this
recommendation could 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,
3
845-46 (4th Cir. 1985); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140
(1985). James has waived appellate review of the district
court’s dismissal order by failing to file objections.
Accordingly, we affirm. We deny James’ motion for a
breakdown of security logs. 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
4