Case ID: f-appx_290/html/0596-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Ricky D. SANDERS, Sr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. COUNTY OF SUMTER, care of William T. Noonan; County of Lee, care of Jimmy Lacoste; Doctor Whitaker, SLRDC Physician; Southeastern Service Group, Incorporated, care of Annette Stalvy; Simon Major, Director of SLRDC; Lieutenant Nancy McMillin, Shift Head Supervisor; C.O. Brunson, Defendants—Appellees.
    No. 08-6434.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: Aug. 14, 2008.
    Decided: Aug. 19, 2008.
    
      Ricky Darren Sanders, Sr., Appellant Pro Se. James M. Davis, Jr., Davidson, Morrison & Lindemann, PA, Columbia, South Carolina; John Evans James, III, John E. James II Law Office, Winnsboro, South Carolina; Lucy Grey Wilson Mclver, Lee, Erter, Wilson, James, Holler & Smith, LLC, Sumter, South Carolina; Kathleen Devereaux Cauthen, Cauthen Law Firm, Blythewood, South Carolina, for Appellees.
    Before MICHAEL, Circuit Judge, and WILKINS and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
   PER CURIAM:

Ricky Darren Sanders, Sr., appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Sanders v. County of Sumter, No. 0:06-cv-01670-MBS (D.S.C. filed Mar. 4, 2008 & entered Mar. 5, 2008). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       Because Sanders specifically objected to only one aspect of the report of the magistrate judge after proper notice of the need to file specific objections, only that issue is preserved for our review. See United States v. Midgette, 478 F.3d 616, 621-22 (4th Cir.2007)