Stanley Williams v. State of North Carolina

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: July 9, 2024
• Docket: 23-1800
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 23-1800 Doc: 5 Filed: 07/09/2024 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23-1800

STANLEY LORENZO WILLIAMS,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA; NORTH CAROLINA GENERAL ASSEMBLY; NEW HANOVER COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. Richard E. Myers, II, Chief District Judge. (7:21-cv-00104-M)

Submitted: May 31, 2024 Decided: July 9, 2024

Before THACKER, QUATTLEBAUM, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Stanley Lorenzo Williams, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 23-1800 Doc: 5 Filed: 07/09/2024 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:

Stanley Lorenzo Williams appeals the district court’s orders accepting the

recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on Williams’ 42 U.S.C. § 1983

complaint and denying Williams’ Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion to alter or amend the

judgment. Limiting our review to the issues raised in Williams’ informal brief, see 4th Cir.

R. 34(b); see also Jackson v. Lightsey, 775 F.3d 170,177 (4th Cir. 2014), we conclude that

the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to alter or amend the judgment,

see United States v. Taylor, 54 F.4th 795, 802 (4th Cir. 2022) (providing standard).

As the district court correctly held, consent of the parties is not required when, as

here, the district court refers a pretrial matter to a magistrate judge for findings and a

recommendation. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(1). And, because Williams did not file specific

objections to the substance of the magistrate judge’s recommendation, the district court

appropriately conducted clear error review. Elijah v. Dunbar, 66 F.4th 454, 460

(4th Cir. 2023).

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s orders. Williams v. North Carolina,

No. 7:21-cv-00104-M (E.D.N.C. Nov. 23, 2023 & July 14, 2023). 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