David Dinkins v. Sumter County, No. 08-6869 (4th Cir. 2008)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-6869 DAVID LEE DINKINS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. SUMTER COUNTY, c/o William Noonan; LEE COUNTY, c/o Jimmy Mcoste; SIMON MAJOR, Jr., Director; DR. BUSH; SOUTHERN HEALTH PARTNERS, c/o Phil Mack, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Beaufort. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District Judge. (9:07-cv-02016-HMH) Submitted: August 21, 2008 Decided: August 27, 2008 Before WILLIAMS, Chief Judge, and KING and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. David Lee Dinkins, Appellant Pro Se. James M. Davis, Jr., Joel Steve Hughes, DAVIDSON, MORRISON & LINDEMANN, PA, Columbia, South Carolina, Jerome Scott Kozacki, WILLCOX, BUYCK AND WILLIAMS, Florence, South Carolina, Andrew S. Halio, Elliott T. Halio, HALIO & HALIO, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: David Lee Dinkins appeals the district court s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and granting summary judgment in favor of Defendants in Dinkins civil action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000). While the magistrate judge advised Dinkins that failure to timely file specific written objections to the report would result in waiver of the right to appeal from the district court s judgment, Dinkins failed to file any objections to the magistrate judge s report and recommendation. Therefore, Dinkins has waived appellate review of his claims. See United States v. Midgette, 478 F.3d 616, 621-22 (4th Cir. 2007). Accordingly, we affirm the district court s Dinkins motion for appointment of counsel. ruling and deny We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the 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.