Case ID: f-appx_30/html/0275-01.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

Ralph H. COWGILL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. GREENVILLE COUNTY SOLICITORS OFFICE; Greenville County, South Carolina, Sheriff and Sheriff’s Department; Greenville Police Department; South Carolina Law Enforcement Division; Probation and Parole Special Services, Defendants-Appellees. Ralph H. Cowgill, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Federal Bureau of Investigation; United States Marshals Service; Drug Enforcement Administration; South Carolina Highway Patrol; Greer Police, Defendants-Appellees. Ralph H. Cowgill, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Greenville County, South Carolina, Sheriff and Sheriff's Department; Special Services; Sled; Greenville Police Department; Greenville County Probation and Parole; Greenville County Solicitors Office; Greenville County Clerk of Court; Greenville County Detention Center; Greenville County Department of Corrections, Defendants-Appellees. Ralph H. Cowgill, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Dove Broadcasting, Incorporated; TBN Broadcasting, Defendants-Appellees. Ralph H. Cowgill, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Ex President Bill Clinton and Mrs. Bill Clinton; Ex Vice President Al Gore and Mrs. Al Gore; Ex Attorney General Janet Reno, Defendants-Appellees. Ralph H. Cowgill, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Federal Bureau of Investigation; Drug Enforcement Administration; United States Marshal’s Service; United States Attorneys; Clerk of Court; Highway Patrol; City of Greer Police Department; United States Government, Defendants-Appellees. Ralph H. Cowgill, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Greenville County Solicitors Office; Greenville County, South Carolina, Sheriff and Sheriffs Department; Greenville Police Department; South Carolina Law Enforcement Division; Probation and Parole Special Services, Defendants-Appellees. Ralph H. Cowgill, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Federal Bureau of Investigation; United States Marshals Service; Drug Enforcement Administration; The South Carolina Highway Patrol; Greer Police Department, Defendants-Appellees. Ralph H. Cowgill, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Greenville County, South Carolina, Sheriff and Sheriff's Department; Special Services; Sled; Greenville Police Department; Greenville County Probation and Parole; Greenville County Solicitors Office; Greenville County Clerk of Court; Greenville County Detention Center; Greenville County Department of Corrections, Defendants-Appellees. Ralph H. Cowgill, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Dove Broadcasting, Incorporated; TBN Broadcasting, Defendants-Appellees. Ralph H. Cowgill, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Ex President Bill Clinton and Mrs. Bill Clinton; Ex Vice President Al Gore and Mrs. Al Gore; Ex Attorney General Janet Reno, Defendants-Appellees. Ralph H. Cowgill, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Federal Bureau of Investigation; Drug Enforcement Administration; United States Marshal’s Service; United States Attorney; Clerk of Court; Highway Patrol; City of Greer Police Department; US Government, Defendants-Appellees.
    Nos. 01-2171, 01-2174, 02-1029, 01-2172, 01-2222, 02-1030, 01-2173, 01-2223, 02-1031.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 27, 2002.
    Decided March 19, 2002.
    Ralph H. Cowgill, Appellant Pro Se.
    Before WIDENER, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed in part and dismissed in part by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
   OPINION

PER CURIAM.

Ralph H. Cowgill appeals several district court orders, four orders accepting a magistrate judge’s recommendation to dismiss Cowgill’s civil complaints, two orders adopting a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation because Cowgill failed to file objections to the report, and six orders imposing pre-filing injunctions.

In Appeal Nos. 01-2171, 01-2172, OP-2173, and 01-2222, we find no reversible error in the district court’s accepting a magistrate judge’s recommendations to dismiss Cowgill’s various frivolous claims against multiple federal, state, local, and private entities. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Cowgill v. Greenville County Solicitors Office; Cowgill v. FBI; Cowgill v. Greenville County; and Cowgill v. Clinton, Nos. CA-01-2550-06-20BG; CA-01-2551-6-20BG; CA-01-2937-6-20BG & CA-01-2936-6-20BG (D.S.C. filed Aug. 30, 2001 & entered Aug. 31, 2001; Aug. 30, 2001; filed Aug. 30, 2001 & entered Aug. 31, 2001; Aug. 8, 2001). We affirm the district court’s orders in Appeal Nos. 01-2174 and 01-2223 because Cowgill failed to object to the magistrate judge’s report after receiving proper notice. See Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir.1985) (the timely filing of objections to the magistrate judge’s recommendation is necessary to preserve appellate review of the substance of that recommendation when the parties have been warned that failure to object will waive appellate review).

We further dismiss Appeal Nos. 02-1029, 02-1031, and 02-1032 for lack of jurisdiction because the notices of appeal in these cases were not timely filed. It was incumbent upon Cowgill to file his notices of appeal to the subject court orders imposing a pre-filing injunction within thirty days. Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(1). This appeal period is “mandatory and jurisdictional.” Browder v. Director, Dep’t of Corr., 434 U.S. 257, 267, 98 S.Ct. 556, 54 L.Ed.2d 521 (1978) (quoting United States v. Robinson, 361 U.S. 220, 229, 80 S.Ct. 282, 4 L.Ed.2d 259 (1960)). Because Cow-gill filed his notices of appeal in these actions outside the thirty-day limitations period, we dismiss these appeals for lack of jurisdiction. With respect to Appeal Nos. 02-1030, 02-1033, and 02-1034, we find no reversible error in the district court’s imposition of pre-filing injunctions against Cow-gill. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Cowgill v. FBI; Cowgill v. Clinton; and Cowgill v. FBI, Nos. CA-01-2551-6-20BG; CA-01-2936-6-20BG & CA-01-2938-6-20BG (D.S.C. filed Oct. 30, 2001; entered Oct. 31, 2001).

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 IN PART; DISMISSED IN PART