Jesse James v. Barry Faile

Fourth Circuit

Jesse James v. Barry Faile

632 F. App'x 143

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedFebruary 8, 2016

Docket15-6689

StatusUnpublished

This text of 632 F. App'x 143 (Jesse James v. Barry Faile) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Jesse James v. Barry Faile, 632 F. App'x 143 (4th Cir. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

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, 845-46 (4th Cir.1985); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 106 S.Ct. 466, 88 L.Ed.2d 435 (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.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

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, 845-46 (4th Cir.1985); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 106 S.Ct. 466, 88 L.Ed.2d 435 (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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

632 F. App'x 143, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jesse-james-v-barry-faile-ca4-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack