UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-7105
JESSIE FREDERICK,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
JOHN MAGILL, Director, S.C.D.M.H., in his individual and
official capacity; HOLLY SCATURO, Director - S.V.P.T.P, in
her individual and official capacity; KIMBERLY POHOLCHUK,
Program Coor. S.V.P.T.P., in her individual and official
capacity; WARDEN STEVENSON, Warden, BRCI, in his individual
and official capacity,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior
District Judge. (0:15-cv-03399-HMH)
Submitted: November 17, 2016 Decided: November 22, 2016
Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and MOTZ and TRAXLER, Circuit
Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jessie Frederick, Appellant Pro Se. William Henry Davidson, II,
David Allan DeMasters, DAVIDSON & LINDEMANN, PA, Columbia, South
Carolina; Eugene Matthews, RICHARDSON PLOWDEN, Columbia, South
Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
Jessie Frederick seeks to appeal the district court’s order
dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint. 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 Frederick that the 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, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985); see also Thomas
v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Frederick has waived appellate
review by failing to file specific objections after receiving
proper notice. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal.
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.
DISMISSED
3