Raymond Chestnut v. Rory Thompson, No. 14-7207 (4th Cir. 2014)

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-7207 RAYMOND EDWARD CHESTNUT, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. RORY THOMPSON, Correctional Officer; T. MCGIRT, Correctional Officer, individual and in their official capacities; LEROY JONES; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendants – Appellees, and LARRY JONES, Lieutenant, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Aiken. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge. (1:13-cv-01870-RBH) Submitted: November 20, 2014 Decided: November 25, 2014 Before KING and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Raymond Edward Chestnut, Appellant Pro Se. Marshall Prince, II, Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Raymond Edward Chestnut appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his complaint filed pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). The district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2012). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Chestnut that failure to file timely objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the recommendation. The magistrate timely judge’s filing of specific recommendation is objections necessary to to a preserve appellate review of the substance of that recommendation when the parties have noncompliance. Cir. 1985); Chestnut objections warned of the consequences of Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th see has been also waived after Thomas v. appellate receiving Arn, 474 review by proper notice. * U.S. 140 failing (1985). to file Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. * Chestnut contends that the district court improperly denied his motion for an extension of time to file objections to the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion. Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b). 3 We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal before contentions this court are adequately and argument presented would not in aid the the materials decisional process. AFFIRMED 4