Eric Rieb v. Warden Stevenson, No. 12-8102 (4th Cir. 2013)

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-8102 ERIC ANDREW RIEB, Plaintiff Appellant, v. WARDEN ROBERT M. STEVENSON, CAPTAIN PERCY JONES, III; LT. EDWARD HAMBRICK; Defendants Appellees, and BROAD RIVER CORR INST PROPERTY CONTROL, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Aiken. Richard Mark Gergel, District Judge. (1:11-cv-00425-RMG) Submitted: March 26, 2013 Decided: March 28, 2013 Before DUNCAN, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Eric Andrew Rieb, Appellant Pro Se. Erin Mary Farrell, MCKAY, CAUTHEN, SETTANA & STUBLEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM Eric Rieb appeals the district court s order denying his motion for an extension of time to file objections to the magistrate order judge s adopting report the and recommendation; recommendation of the and the magistrate court s judge, granting summary judgment to the Defendants on Rieb s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) action. 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, 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 summary judgment be granted to the Defendants on Rieb s § 1983 action and advised Rieb 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 recommendation specific is objections necessary to to a preserve appellate review of the substance of that recommendation when the 2 parties have been warned of the consequences of noncompliance. Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Rieb has waived appellate review by failing to timely file objections after receiving fair notice. Accordingly, we affirm the district court s judgment. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 3