Daniel A. Jones v. Schronce, 727 F.2d 91, 94 4th Cir. 1984 . - 3 - PER CURIAM: Daniel A. Jones appeals…

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-7368
DANIEL A. JONES,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
GERALDINE MIRO, Warden; KEN LONG, IGC;
SUPERVISOR LESTER; SUPERVISOR DUKES;
SUPERVISOR WILLIAMS; CORRECTIONAL MEDICAL
SERVICES; DR. KENNEDY; DR. GOWAN,
Defendants - Appellees,
and
DR. MISHRA; NURSE WHITE; NURSE DEVORE; NURSE
SANDERS,
Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Columbia. Margaret B. Seymour, District Judge.
(CA-02-390-3)
Submitted: January 28, 2004 Decided: February 24, 2004
Before WIDENER, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

-- 1 of 3 --

- 2 -
Daniel A. Jones, Appellant Pro Se. Christy Scott Stephens,
BOGOSLOW, JONES, STEPHENS & DUFFIE, P.A., Walterboro, South
Carolina; James Miller Davis, Jr., DAVIDSON, MORRISON & LINDEMANN,
P.A., Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).

-- 2 of 3 --

*To the extent that Jones sought to appeal the district
court’s final order of judgment adopting the report of the
magistrate judge, we conclude that the notice is untimely as to
that order, Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A). Even if the notice of
appeal had been timely, Jones waived his right to appeal that order
by failing to file timely objections to the magistrate’s report.
United States v. Schronce, 727 F.2d 91, 94 (4th Cir. 1984).
- 3 -
PER CURIAM:
Daniel A. Jones appeals the district court’s order
denying his second motion for enlargement of time, filed after
entry of judgment. * We have reviewed the record and find no
reversible error. Accordingly, we conclude that the district court
did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion. See Jones v.
Miro, No. CA-02-390-3 (D.S.C. Aug. 20, 2003). We dispense with
oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument
would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED

-- 3 of 3 --