Ronald Lewis v. Charles Lewi, No. 11-6607 (4th Cir. 2011)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-6607 RONALD WAYNE LEWIS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. CHARLES DEMON LEWIS, Attorney at Law; KEVIN MICHAEL SCHORK, Attorney at Law; PAUL G. GILL, Federal Public Defender's Office, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, Chief District Judge. (3:10-cv-00569-JRS) Submitted: December 15, 2011 Decided: December 19, 2011 Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ronald Wayne Lewis, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Ronald Wayne Lewis seeks to appeal the district court s order denying relief on his complaint filed pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). The district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 636(b)(1)(B) (West 2006 & Supp. 2011). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Lewis that failure to file timely specific objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the recommendation. The magistrate timely judge s filing of recommendation specific is objections necessary to to a preserve appellate review of the substance of that recommendation when the parties have noncompliance. been warned of the consequences Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). has waived of appellate review by failing objections after receiving proper notice. to file Lewis specific Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal before contentions the court are adequately and argument presented would not in aid the the materials decisional process. DISMISSED 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.