Anthony Martin v. William Byers, No. 14-6216 (4th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-6216 ANTHONY FRED MARTIN, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. WILLIAM BYERS; WARDEN MICHAEL MCCALL; LIEUTENANT BRIAN DEGEORGIS; DENNIS ARROWOOD; OFFICER BRANDON EICU; OFFICER TRAVIS THURBER, Defendants Appellees, and MS. SYNDER, Grievance Coordinator, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. David C. Norton, District Judge. (4:12-cv-02100-DCN) Submitted: July 31, 2014 Decided: August 11, 2014 Before MOTZ, KEENAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Anthony Fred Martin, Appellant Pro Se. James Victor McDade, DOYLE, O ROURKE, TATE & MCDADE, PA, Anderson, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Anthony Fred Martin, a South Carolina prisoner, filed an action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) against a number of Perry Correctional Institution employees. alleged in part that on December 20, Martin s complaint 2011, three prison officials entered his cell to conduct a search, one of whom masturbated in Martin s presence and used excessive force in restraining him (the December 20 incident ). Martin raised claims of Eighth Amendment violations against the officers and several additional prison employees, as well as a claim of civil conspiracy. Martin appeals the district court s order adopting the magistrate judge s report and recommendation and granting summary judgment in favor of the Defendants. The magistrate judge, to whom We affirm. the district court referred this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2012), recommended that relief be denied and advised Martin that failure to file timely objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the recommendation. Such timely filing of specific objections is necessary to preserve appellate review of the substance of that recommendation when the parties consequences of noncompliance. have been warned of the Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 155 (1985). 3 Martin s objections to the report and recommendation challenged the magistrate conspiracy claim. judge s failure to address his Because Martin failed to specifically object to the magistrate judge s recommendation regarding the remainder of his claims after receiving notice of the consequences for failure to do so, he has waived appellate review of such claims. See In re Under Seal, 749 F.3d 276, 287 (4th Cir. 2014) ( [A]n objection on one ground does not preserve objections based on different grounds. (internal quotation marks omitted)). On court s appeal, dismissal of Martin his again challenges conspiracy claim. the To district establish a civil conspiracy under § 1983, Appellant[] must present evidence that the Appellees acted jointly in concert and that some overt act was done in furtherance of the conspiracy which resulted in Appellant[ s] deprivation of a constitutional right . . . . Hinkle v. City of Clarksburg, 81 F.3d 416, 421 (4th Cir. 1996). This is a weighty allegations must conjecture and burden. amount must to give Id. more rise Furthermore, than to an rank the factual speculation inference that and each alleged conspirator shared the same conspiratorial objective. Id. at 422. We agree with the district court that Martin s allegations fail to meet these standards, and therefore affirm its resolution of the claim. 4 Accordingly, granting summary dispense with contentions are we judgment oral affirm in argument adequately the favor district of because presented in the the the court s order Defendants. facts We and legal materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 5
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.
