Ashley Prior v. State of South Carolina, No. 19-7381 (4th Cir. 2019)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 19-7381 ASHLEY T. PRIOR, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. STATE OF SC; BRYAN P. STIRLING; JOHN B. MCCREE; SHERIFF OF COLUMBIA; JOHN AND JANE 1-10 DOES, SCDC Kirkland Staff; JAMES AND JOAN 1-10 DOE, DHEC and SCDC Investigators of Health Services, etc, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. Timothy M. Cain, District Judge. (6:19-cv-01619-TMC) Submitted: December 17, 2019 Decided: December 20, 2019 Before KING, FLOYD, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ashley T. Prior, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Ashley T. Prior appeals the district court’s order denying relief on Prior’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint. 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 Prior 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. United States v. Midgette, 478 F.3d 616, 621-22 (4th Cir. 2007); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 154-55 (1985). Prior has waived appellate review by failing to file objections to the magistrate judge’s recommendation after receiving proper notice. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. 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 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.