Court Opinion

ID: 9396890
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-23 21:00:42.266082+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:19.983680
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-6736      Doc: 7         Filed: 05/22/2023      Pg: 1 of 2

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                                UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 22-6736

        THOMAS THOMPSON,

                             Plaintiff - Appellant,

                      v.

        SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF PROBATION, PAROLE, AND
        PARDON SERVICES,

                             Defendant - Appellee.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Beaufort.
        Timothy M. Cain, District Judge. (9:21-cv-01145-TMC)

        Submitted: May 18, 2023                                               Decided: May 22, 2023

        Before NIEMEYER, RICHARDSON, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Thomas Thompson, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-6736         Doc: 7      Filed: 05/22/2023      Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Thomas Thompson appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation

        of the magistrate judge and granting the Defendant summary judgment on Thompson’s

        42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. In his complaint, Thompson alleged violations of his Eighth

        Amendment right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment and his Fourteenth

        Amendment rights to due process and equal protection based on the denial of state parole.

        The district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

        § 636(b)(1)(B). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised

        Thompson that failure to file timely, specific objections to this recommendation could

        waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the recommendation. The

        district court found that Thompson failed to raise specific objections to the magistrate

        judge’s report and accepted the magistrate judge’s recommendation. Thompson, however,

        does not challenge the district court’s ruling on the specificity of the objections on appeal.

               Limiting our review of the record to the issues raised in Thompson’s informal brief,

        see 4th Cir. R. 34(b); see also Jackson v. Lightsey, 775 F.3d 170, 177 (4th Cir. 2014) (“The

        informal brief is an important document; under Fourth Circuit rules, our review is limited

        to issues preserved in that brief.”), we affirm the judgment of the district court, Thompson

        v. S.C. Dep’t of Prob., Parole, & Pardon Servs., No. 9:21-cv-01145-TMC (D.S.C. May

        26, 2022). 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

                                                      2