Brent Austin v. Dr. R. Steen, No. 11-6913 (4th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-6913 BRENT AUSTIN, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. DR. R. STEEN; JON OZMINT; DR. J. ALEWINE; DR. M. BEINOR; NURSE D. COOK; WARDEN STONE; CECILIA REYNOLDS; JEANNE MCKAYE; JERRY WASHINGTON; JANICE PHILLIPS; N. DAYNE HAILE, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge. (6:10-cv-02286-RBH) Submitted: November 15, 2011 Decided: November 17, 2011 Before NIEMEYER and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed in part, affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion. Brent Austin, Appellant Pro Se. Shelton Webber Haile, Mason Abram Summers, RICHARDSON, PLOWDEN & ROBINSON, PA, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Brent Austin seeks to appeal both the magistrate judge s report and recommendation and the district court s order accepting the recommendation and denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint. The district We dismiss in part and affirm in part. court referred Austin s 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 Austin that failure to file timely objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the recommendation. Instead of filing objections, Austin filed an appeal. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2006), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 54(b); Cohen v. 545-46 (1949). is neither a Cir. U.S.C. Beneficial final order Indus. (2006); Loan Fed. Corp., R. 337 Civ. U.S. P. 541, nor an appealable interlocutory or See Harvey v. Addison, 175 F.3d 1217, 1219 1999). Thus, judge s magistrate § 1292 A magistrate judge s report and recommendation collateral order. (10th 28 report we dismiss and Austin s recommendation appeal for of the lack of jurisdiction. Turning to Austin s appeal of the final order, the timely filing of specific objections to a magistrate judge s 2 recommendation is necessary to preserve appellate review of the substance of that recommendation when the warned of the consequences of noncompliance. parties have been Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Austin has waived appellate review of the district court s judgment by failing to file specific objections after receiving proper notice. We therefore affirm the judgment of the district court. 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 IN PART; AFFIRMED IN PART 3
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.
