Benny Barfield v. Mark Sanford, No. 10-6726 (4th Cir. 2010)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-6726 BENNY BARFIELD, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. HONORABLE MARK SANFORD, Governor; JOHN MCGILL, Director SCDMH; CHAD LOMINICK, Director SVPTP; JON OZMIT, Director SCDC; ROBERT STEVENSON, Warden SCDC, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. Patrick Michael Duffy, Senior District Judge. (6:09-cv-00850-PDM) Submitted: August 19, 2010 Decided: August 30, 2010 Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Benny Barfield, Appellant Pro Se. William Henry Davidson, II, Joel Steve Hughes, Kenneth Paul Woodington, DAVIDSON, MORRISON & LINDEMANN, PA, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Benny Barfield appeals the denying relief on his complaint. this case to a magistrate district that relief be order The district court referred judge pursuant § 636(b)(1)(B) (West 2006 & Supp. 2010). recommended court s denied and to 28 U.S.C.A. The magistrate judge advised Barfield that failure to file timely objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the recommendation. The magistrate timely judge s filing of specific recommendation is objections necessary to to a preserve appellate review of the substance of that recommendation when the parties have noncompliance. Cir. 1985); Barfield warned of the consequences of Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th see has been also waived Thomas v. 474 review appellate Arn, by U.S. 140 failing (1985). to file objections after receiving proper notice. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. legal before We dispense with oral argument because the facts and contentions the court are adequately and argument presented would not in aid the the materials decisional process. AFFIRMED 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.