Leroy McKenzie v. Lieutenant Raines, No. 12-6562 (4th Cir. 2012)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-6562 LEROY ALVIN MCKENZIE, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. LIEUTENANT RAINES, SCDC; OFFICER VON MUITIS, SCDC; OFFICER SEALY, SCDC; LIEUTENANT MCGHEE, SCDC; OFFICER WANDA YOUNG, individually and in their official capacities; HONORABLE WILLIAM ROBERT BYARS, JR., Director SCDC, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. Timothy M. Cain, District Judge. (6:11-cv-00559-TMC) Submitted: October 11, 2012 Decided: October 15, 2012 Before KING, DUNCAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Leroy Alvin McKenzie, Appellant Pro Se. Alissa Robyn Collins, James Albert Stuckey, Jr., STUCKEY LAW OFFICES, PA, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Leroy Alvin McKenzie appeals the district court s orders adopting the recommendations of the magistrate judge and denying his motions under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(f) and for a declaratory judgment and granting summary judgment to Defendants on his claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 ( ADA ), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12131-65 (2006), and the Rehabilitation Act ( RA ), 29 U.S.C. § 794(a) (2006), and the court s subsequent order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion to alter or amend judgment. We affirm. On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). in the appellant s brief. McKenzie s informal brief does not challenge Because the district court s denial of his motion seeking a declaratory judgment, McKenzie has forfeited appellate review of that ruling. With respect to the district court s ruling adopting the recommendation McKenzie s Rule recommendation of 56(f) of the the magistrate motion and magistrate its judge judge order and and denying adopting granting the summary judgment to Defendants on his claims under the ADA and the RA, the timely filing of specific objections to a magistrate judge s recommendation is necessary to preserve appellate review of the substance warned of of that the recommendation consequences of 2 when the parties noncompliance. have Diamond been v. Colonial (4th Cir. Life & 2005); (4th Cir. 1985). Accident Wright Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315-16 Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 Ins. v. McKenzie has waived appellate review of that ruling and order by failing to file specific objections after receiving proper notice. * We further find no abuse of discretion in the district court s denial of McKenzie s Rule 59(e) motion to alter or amend judgment, Robinson v. Wix Filtration Corp., 599 F.3d 403, 407 (4th Cir. 2010) (stating standard of review), because McKenzie did not rely on a change in controlling evidence, or identify a clear error of law. law, present new See Pac. Ins. Co. v. Am. Nat l Fire Ins. Co., 148 F.3d 396, 403 (4th Cir. 1998) (listing the three circumstances under which Rule 59(e) relief may be granted). Accordingly, We dispense with oral we affirm argument the district because the court s facts orders. and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED * McKenzie did raise a specific objection to the magistrate judge s jurisdiction over his case, but he does not press this issue on appeal. 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.