Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-16-07105/USCOURTS-ca4-16-07105-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 560
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Civil Detainee - Conditions of Confinement
Cause of Action: 

---

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-7105

JESSIE FREDERICK,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

JOHN MAGILL, Director, S.C.D.M.H., in his individual and 

official capacity; HOLLY SCATURO, Director - S.V.P.T.P, in 

her individual and official capacity; KIMBERLY POHOLCHUK, 

Program Coor. S.V.P.T.P., in her individual and official 

capacity; WARDEN STEVENSON, Warden, BRCI, in his individual 

and official capacity,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior

District Judge. (0:15-cv-03399-HMH)

Submitted: November 17, 2016 Decided: November 22, 2016

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and MOTZ and TRAXLER, Circuit 

Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jessie Frederick, Appellant Pro Se. William Henry Davidson, II, 

David Allan DeMasters, DAVIDSON & LINDEMANN, PA, Columbia, South 

Carolina; Eugene Matthews, RICHARDSON PLOWDEN, Columbia, South 

Carolina, for Appellees.

Appeal: 16-7105 Doc: 11 Filed: 11/22/2016 Pg: 1 of 3
2

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-7105 Doc: 11 Filed: 11/22/2016 Pg: 2 of 3
3

PER CURIAM:

Jessie Frederick seeks to appeal the district court’s order 

dismissing 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 Frederick that the 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). Frederick 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: 16-7105 Doc: 11 Filed: 11/22/2016 Pg: 3 of 3