Steven Lester v. Perry Correctional Institution, No. 12-7027 (4th Cir. 2012)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-7027 STEVEN LESTER, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. PERRY CORRECTIONAL ALWREN; CPT RANDAL, INSTITUTION; OFFICER FISH; OFFICER Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. Timothy M. Cain, District Judge. (4:12-cv-00971-TMC) Submitted: September 27, 2012 Decided: October 2, 2012 Before MOTZ, DAVIS, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Steven Lester, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Steven Lester appeals the district court s order denying relief without prejudice on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint. The district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 636(b)(1)(B) (West 2006 & relief Supp. be 2012). denied The and magistrate advised judge recommended that that failure file Lester to specific objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the recommendation. The district court adopted the magistrate judge s recommendation. The magistrate timely judge s filing of recommendation specific is objections necessary to to a preserve appellate review of the substance of that recommendation when the parties have noncompliance. been warned of the consequences Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). has waived objections appellate after of review receiving by proper failing notice. to file Lester specific Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. Although it adopted the magistrate judge s report, the district court elected to dismiss the action without prejudice rather than with prejudice as the magistrate judge had recommended. 2 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. AFFIRMED 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.
