Ozie M. Ware v. RODNEY PRUITT; J. E. PATSOURAKOS, Officer

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-1210
OZIE M. WARE,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
RODNEY PRUITT; J. E. PATSOURAKOS, Officer,
Defendants – Appellees,
and
JUDGE A W FLYNN; OFFICER GRIFFIN,
Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Aiken. Margaret B. Seymour, District Judge.
(1:09-cv-02360-MBS)
Submitted: July 28, 2011 Decided: August 1, 2011
Before SHEDD, AGEE, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Ozie M. Ware, Appellant Pro Se. Evan Markus Gessner, LIDE &
PAULEY, LLC, Lexington, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Ozie M. Ware appeals the district court’s order
adopting the magistrate judge’s recommendation to grant
Defendants’ summary judgment motion on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983
(2006) action against them. On appeal, we confine our review to
the issues raised in Ware’s informal brief. See 4th Cir. R.
34(b). Because Ware’s informal brief does not challenge the
district court’s dispositive holdings, Ware has forfeited
appellate review of the district court’s order. Accordingly, we
affirm the district court’s judgment.* See Ware v. Pruitt, No.
1:09-cv-02360-MBS (D.S.C. Feb. 22, 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
* Because the timely filing of specific objections to a
magistrate judge’s recommendation is necessary to preserve
appellate review of a district court order adopting that
recommendation when the parties have been warned of the
consequences of noncompliance, see Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d
841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985), Ware also waived appellate review
over the district court’s order by failing to file specific
objections after receiving proper notice.

-- 2 of 2 --