Joshua Jordan v. SC Corrections Office of Investigations

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: August 9, 2024
• Docket: 23-6248
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6248 Doc: 30 Filed: 08/09/2024 Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23-6248

JOSHUA BRYAN JORDAN,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS OFFICE OF INVESTIGATIONS AND INTELLIGENCE; MATT WATSON; RICHARD DARLING,

Defendants - Appellees.

No. 23-6546

RICHARD M. DARLING; SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS OFFICE OF INVESTIGATIONS AND INTELLIGENCE (O.I.I.),

Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. David C. Norton, District Judge. (2:22-cv-03521-DCN-SVH; 2:23-cv-01137- DCN) USCA4 Appeal: 23-6248 Doc: 30 Filed: 08/09/2024 Pg: 2 of 4

Submitted: July 30, 2024 Decided: August 9, 2024

Before QUATTLEBAUM and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Joshua Bryan Jordan, Appellant Pro Se. Gordon Wade Cooper, BUYCK LAW FIRM, LLC, Mt. Pleasant, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2 USCA4 Appeal: 23-6248 Doc: 30 Filed: 08/09/2024 Pg: 3 of 4

PER CURIAM:

In these consolidated appeals, Joshua Bryan Jordan appeals the district court’s

orders denying relief on Jordan’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaints. For the reasons that follow,

we affirm.

In No. 23-6248, Jordan appeals from the district court’s order accepting the

magistrate judge’s recommendation to dismiss Jordan’s claim for injunctive relief and to

stay Jordan’s § 1983 action because his state criminal case was ongoing. On appeal, Jordan

challenges the court’s dismissal of his request for injunctive relief. See 28 U.S.C.

§ 1292(a)(1) (providing for appellate review of interlocutory decisions granting or refusing

injunctions). However, “[A] court of the United States may not grant an injunction to stay

proceedings in a State court except as expressly authorized by Act of Congress, or where

necessary in aid of its jurisdiction, or to protect or effectuate its judgments.” 28 U.S.C.

§ 2283. Moreover, “Younger [v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971)] abstention . . . sets forth a

mandatory rule requiring the dismissal of a federal action that seeks to enjoin an ongoing

prosecution in a state criminal proceedings.” Nevins v. Gilchrist, 444 F.3d 237, 247

(4th Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks omitted). The district court, therefore, did not err

in dismissing Jordan’s claim for an injunction against his ongoing state criminal

prosecution. We thus affirm the district court’s order dismissing Jordan’s request for

injunctive relief.

In No. 23-6546, Jordan appeals from the district court’s order accepting the

magistrate judge’s recommendation to dismiss Jordan’s § 1983 complaint without

prejudice for failure to prosecute pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). The magistrate judge

3 USCA4 Appeal: 23-6248 Doc: 30 Filed: 08/09/2024 Pg: 4 of 4

recommended that relief be denied after Jordan failed to respond to the magistrate judge’s

show cause order, and advised Jordan that failure to file timely, specific 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. Martin v. Duffy, 858 F.3d 239, 245 (4th Cir. 2017); Wright v. Collins, 766

F.2d 841, 846-47 (4th Cir. 1985); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 154-55 (1985).

Although Jordan received proper notice and filed objections to the magistrate judge’s

recommendation, he has forfeited appellate review because the objections were untimely.

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order dismissing Jordan’s § 1983 complaint for

failure to prosecute.

We also deny all pending motions. 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