Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-15-06769/USCOURTS-ca4-15-06769-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 

---

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-6769

HENRY W. MARTIN, JR.,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

CPT MYECHA MILEY,

Defendant – Appellee,

and

WILLIAM R. BYARS; JOHN R. PATE; ARTHUR A. JORDAN; MCKENNDLY 

NEWTON; ROBERT E. WARD; JON OZMINT; DENNIS PATTERSON; DANIEL 

MURPHY; DAVID M. TATARSKY; LT J. CARUJO; LT J. CARTER; ROBERT 

ORR; LT JAMES RUMP; CAPTAIN E. J. MILLER; DR. THOMAS BYNSE; LT 

VARLEASE BLACK; CPL L. JENKINS; M. HUDSON; S. SINGLATON, DHO; 

CPL T. SIMPSON; MR. MCQUEEN; P. SMITH; A. HOLLMAN; HELEN 

FREEMAN; THOMAS SCOTT; CPT E. JAMES; TANYA A. GEE; V. CLAIRE 

ALLEN; JOHN C. FEW; WAYNE C. MCCABE; JILL BEATTIE; JEANNETTE 

MACK; FRANCINE BAUCHMAN; PATTY BRITT POSEY; JAMES S. SLIGH, JR.; 

DR. ROWLAND; GREGORY S. LINE; CHARLOTTE SMITH; ELLEN GOODWIN; 

RUSSELL RUSH; JIM CROSBY; SUSAN BARDEN; VIRGINIA CROCKER; PAM 

SMITH; LAKETA DIKA; DEBORAH B. DURDEN,

Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Greenville. Timothy M. Cain, District Judge. 

(6:13-cv-03516-TMC)

Submitted: July 23, 2015 Decided: July 28, 2015

Appeal: 15-6769 Doc: 9 Filed: 07/28/2015 Pg: 1 of 3
2

Before NIEMEYER and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Henry W. Martin, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Michael D. Freeman, Sr., 

GRIFFITH, SHARP & LIIPFERT, LLC, Beaufort, South Carolina, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-6769 Doc: 9 Filed: 07/28/2015 Pg: 2 of 3
3

PER CURIAM:

Henry W. Martin, Jr. appeals the district court’s order 

denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint. 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 Martin that failure 

to file timely objections to this recommendation could waive 

appellate review of a district court order based upon the 

recommendation.

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). Martin has waived appellate review by failing to 

file specific objections after receiving proper notice. 

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal.

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.

DISMISSED

Appeal: 15-6769 Doc: 9 Filed: 07/28/2015 Pg: 3 of 3