Court Opinion

ID: 990636
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-03 23:24:21.938916+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:21:41.388441
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

MARY E. RUCKER,
Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.
                                                                      No. 96-1129
ANDERSON COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT
FIVE,
Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of South Carolina, at Anderson.
G. Ross Anderson, Jr., District Judge.
(CA-93-2764-8-3AK)

Submitted: September 30, 1996

Decided: October 15, 1996

Before HALL, NIEMEYER, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Mary E. Rucker, Appellant Pro Se. Kenneth Lendren Childs, Allen
Dean Smith, CHILDS & DUFF, P.A., Columbia, South Carolina, for
Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).
OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Mary E. Rucker appeals from the district court's order adopting the
report and recommendation of the magistrate judge and granting sum-
mary judgment to Defendant in her employment discrimination
action. She also appeals the district court's order denying her Fed. R.
Civ. P. 59(e) motion to alter or amend the judgment. We have
reviewed the district court's opinions and find no reversible error.
Accordingly, we affirm substantially on the reasoning of the district
court. Rucker v. Anderson County Sch. Dist. Five , No. CA-93-2764-
8-3AK (D.S.C. Oct. 30 & Dec. 26, 1995).

In addition, on appeal, Rucker attempts to raise numerous claims
not addressed in her objections to the magistrate judge's report. How-
ever, because the district court is only required to"make a de novo
determination of those portions of the [magistrate's] proposed find-
ings or recommendations to which objection is made," 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1) (1994), appellate review is waived as to all claims that
could have been raised in objections, but were not. See Wright v.
Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845 (4th Cir. 1985).

Finally, Rucker contends that her attorney in district court was
incompetent. However, a litigant in a civil action has no constitutional
or statutory right to effective assistance of counsel, and therefore, a
claimant showing ineffective assistance is not entitled to collateral
relief. The appropriate remedy for such a claim is a malpractice suit.
Glick v. Henderson, 855 F.2d 536, 541 (8th Cir. 1988); MacCuish v.
United States, 844 F.2d 733, 735-36 (10th Cir. 1988); Kushner v.
Winterthur Swiss Ins. Co., 620 F.2d 404, 407-08 (3d Cir. 1980).

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal conten-
tions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

                    2