Martin Avila v. Edgefield Federal Prison

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-7297
MARTIN AVILA,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
EDGEFIELD FEDERAL PRISON; MRS. MARY MITCHELL, Warden; MR.
ACOSTA, Assist Warden; MR. COLLIE, Capt; MR. CLARK, Lt; MR.
HOLLET, Lt; MR. NEAL, C Unit Manager; MR. H. KROGER, III, B
Unit Manager; MRS. S. CHEEK, B Case Manager; MR. J. BRYANT,
B Counselor; MR. JOHNSON, C Counselor; MR. SANTIAGO, SIS;
MR. ROPER, Unit Officer; MR. UPSON, Unit Officer; MR.
FLORES, Unit Officer; MR. KATE, Unit Officer; MRS. MARTIN,
Unit Officer; MR. GREEN, Unit Officer; MR. EVANS, Unit
Officer; MRS. JACKSON, Unit Manager; MR. FALLEN, Assist
Warden; MR. S. SMITH, Recreation; MR. T. NIXON; MR. J.
SULLIVAN; MR. SPARK; MRS. LATHROP; MR. L. MORGAN, Unit
Officer; MR. WILSON, Unit Officer; MR. BURKETT, B; MR.
BURKETT; MRS. V. KEPNER, Education,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior
District Judge. (0:10-cv-02370-HMH)
Submitted: January 20, 2012 Decided: February 3, 2012
Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
Martin Avila, Appellant Pro Se. Marshall Prince, II, Assistant
United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 2 of 3 --

3
PER CURIAM:
Martin Avila appeals the district court’s order
accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying
Avila’s Fed. R. Civ. P. 15 motions seeking leave to amend his
complaint. Although we find that Avila’s objections to the
magistrate judge’s report were sufficient to preserve appellate
review of his claims, we have reviewed the record and find no
reversible error. See Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46
(4th Cir. 1985). Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated
by the district court. Avila v. Edgefield Fed. Prison, No.
0:10-cv-02370-HMH (D.S.C. July 21, 2011). 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 --