Stevie Aiken v. Colleton County Detention Center, No. 12-7692 (4th Cir. 2013)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-7692 STEVIE AIKEN, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. COLLETON COUNTY DETENTION CENTER; CORPORAL GRANT; OFFICER COOK; OFFICER ROBERTS; DEPUTY LANCE; CHARLES FEASER, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Anderson. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., District Judge. (8:12-cv-00205-JFA) Submitted: February 15, 2013 Decided: February 27, 2013 Before KEENAN, DIAZ, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Stevie Aiken, Appellant Pro Se. Matthew David Cavender, Marshall Hodges Waldron, Jr., GRIFFITH, SADLER & SHARP, P.A., Beaufort, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Stevie Aiken appeals the district court s order denying relief 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 & Supp. 2012). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Aiken that failure to file timely and specific objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the 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 review receiving by proper failing notice. affirm the judgment of the district court. motion for of the appointment of counsel, to file Aiken specific Accordingly, we We deny Aiken s his motion for transcripts at Government expense, and his motion to reinstate his action. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 2 presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the 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.