Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-19-07381/USCOURTS-ca4-19-07381-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 

---

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-7381

ASHLEY T. PRIOR,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

STATE OF SC; BRYAN P. STIRLING; JOHN B. MCCREE; SHERIFF OF 

COLUMBIA; JOHN AND JANE 1-10 DOES, SCDC Kirkland Staff; JAMES AND 

JOAN 1-10 DOE, DHEC and SCDC Investigators of Health Services, etc,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at 

Greenville. Timothy M. Cain, District Judge. (6:19-cv-01619-TMC)

Submitted: December 17, 2019 Decided: December 20, 2019

Before KING, FLOYD, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ashley T. Prior, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 19-7381 Doc: 9 Filed: 12/20/2019 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Ashley T. Prior appeals the district court’s order denying relief on Prior’s 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 Prior that failure to file timely specific 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. United States v. 

Midgette, 478 F.3d 616, 621-22 (4th Cir. 2007); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 

154-55 (1985). Prior has waived appellate review by failing to file objections to the 

magistrate judge’s recommendation after receiving proper notice. Accordingly, we affirm 

the judgment of the district court. 

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

USCA4 Appeal: 19-7381 Doc: 9 Filed: 12/20/2019 Pg: 2 of 2