James B. CURRY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT; Scott S. Harris, Clerk of Court for Supreme Court of the United States, Defendants-Appellees.
James B. Curry, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. United States Supreme Court; Scott S. Harris, Clerk of Court for Supreme Court of the United States, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 18-6460, No. 18-6555
Decided: February 27, 2019
Before WILKINSON and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
James B. Curry, Appellant Pro Se.
In Appeal No. 18-6555, James Bernard Curry appeals the district court's order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing without prejudice his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (2012).1 In Appeal No. 18-6460, Curry appeals the district court's order dismissing filings that were erroneously docketed as motions.2 On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the Appellant's brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Curry's informal brief in Appeal No. 18-6460 does not challenge the basis for the district court's disposition of the order dismissing erroneously docketed filings, Curry has forfeited appellate review of that order. See 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.”). Accordingly, we affirm the district court's order.
In the dismissal order at issue in Appeal No. 18-6555, the district court had 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 Curry that failure to timely file 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. Martin v. Duffy, 858 F.3d 239, 245 (4th Cir. 2017), cert. denied, ––– U.S. ––––, 138 S.Ct. 738, 199 L.Ed.2d 605 (2018); Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 106 S.Ct. 466, 88 L.Ed.2d 435 (1985). Curry has waived appellate review of the district court's dismissal order by failing to file specific objections after receiving proper notice. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.
Finally, we deny Curry's pending motions for summary disposition, for default judgment, to reconsider the consolidation of his appeals, to grant a new trial, and to refund his filing fees. We also deny as moot Curry's motion to expedite 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.
1. We conclude that the dismissal without prejudice is final and appealable because no amendment to the complaint could cure the defect identified by the district court. See Goode v. Cent. Va. Legal Aid Soc'y, Inc., 807 F.3d 619, 623 (4th Cir. 2015).
2. To the extent Curry seeks to challenge rulings that we have made in prior proceedings, he may not do so in these appeals.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Was this helpful?
Response sent, thank you
Welcome to FindLaw's Cases & Codes
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.