Charles Thomas v. South Carolina DepÂ’t of Corrections, No. 14-7551 (4th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this CaseThis opinion or order relates to an opinion or order originally issued on January 27, 2015.
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-7551 CHARLES EDWARD THOMAS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; JON OZMINT, Former Prison Director; MEDICAL DIVISION; FINANCIAL RECORDS, In their individual and official capacities, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock Hill. David C. Norton, District Judge. (0:14-cv-00302-DCN) Submitted: July 20, 2015 Decided: September 21, 2015 Before SHEDD, KEENAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Charles Edward Thomas, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Charles Edward Thomas appeals the district court’s order adopting the magistrate judge’s recommendation to dismiss, after a 28 U.S.C. pursuant to Disabilities § 1915 42 (2012) U.S.C. Act, 42 review, § 1983 U.S.C. Thomas’s (2012), the §§ 12101-12300 claims brought Americans (2012), and with the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1320d–1320d-9 supplemental jurisdiction (2012), over and declining Thomas’s to law state exercise claims. Thomas has also filed with this Court several motions seeking additional relief. We deny the pending motions and affirm the district court’s judgment. The timely filing of specific objections to a magistrate judge’s recommendation is necessary to preserve appellate review of the substance of that recommendation when the 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). Moreover, we limit our review to the issues raised in the appellant’s informal brief. Cir. R. 34(b). court’s See 4th Thomas waived appellate review of the district dispositive holdings by failing to file specific objections to the magistrate judge’s dispositive recommendations after receiving proper notice, and by failing to challenge the district court’s dispositive holdings in his informal brief. 2 Accordingly, we deny the pending motions and 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
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.
