Phillip Bridges v. Simpsonville Police Department, No. 12-1891 (4th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-1891 PHILLIP ANDREW BRIDGES, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. SIMPSONVILLE POLICE DEPARTMENT BLAINE HUDSON; AARON EDWARDS, Official Capacities, AGENCY; JIMMY DALE LOGAN; Individually and in their Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., Senior District Judge. (6:12-cv-01198-GRA) Submitted: December 13, 2012 Decided: January 2, 2013 Before DAVIS, KEENAN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Phillip Andrew Bridges, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM Phillip order denying Andrew his Bridges motion for an appeals the extension district of time court s to file objections to the magistrate judge s report and recommendation; the court s order adopting the recommendation of the magistrate judge, dismissing without prejudice Bridges 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint, and denying the motion to appoint counsel; and the court s order denying reconsideration. 1 We affirm. With regard to the order denying an extension of time to object to the magistrate judge s report and recommendation, we have reviewed the record and find no abuse of discretion. See Carefirst of Md., Inc. v. Carefirst Pregnancy Ctrs., Inc., 334 F.3d 390, 396 (4th Cir. 2003) (stating standard of review). Accordingly, we affirm the court s order. Turning to the order adopting the magistrate judge s report and denying the appointment of counsel, the district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 1 Although the district court should have construed the motion as one filed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying relief and affirm the court s order. See Heyman v. M.L. Mktg. Co., 116 F.3d 91, 94 (4th Cir. 1997) (stating standard of review); CNF Constructors, Inc. v. Donohoe Constr. Co., 57 F.3d 395, 401 (4th Cir. 1995) (finding that where, as here, motion sought reconsideration of legal issue already addressed in earlier ruling, motion was not authorized by Rule 60(b) and rejection of motion was not abuse of discretion). 2 U.S.C.A. § 636(b)(1)(B) (West 2006 & Supp. 2012). The magistrate judge recommended that Bridges § 1983 complaint be dismissed without prejudice and advised Bridges that failure to timely file specific written objections to this recommendation would 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); Bridges 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 fair notice. Accordingly, we affirm the district court s judgment. 2 We deny dispense Bridges with contentions are request oral for argument adequately the appointment because presented in the the of facts counsel and and legal materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 2 To the extent Bridges raises new claims for the first time on appeal, we decline to address them. See Muth v. United States, 1 F.3d 246, 250 (4th Cir. 1993). 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.
