Robert Lewis v. Hoke County

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 22-6171
ROBERT LEWIS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
HOKE COUNTY; HUBERT PETERKIN; ABL FOOD SERVICE, a/k/a Summit
Food Services, LLC; SOUTHERN HEALTH PARTNERS; NEKIA REVELS;
KEVIN EDGE; BERNIECE, ABL Food Service Manager,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at
Greensboro. William L. Osteen, Jr., District Judge. (1:17-cv-00987-WO-JLW)
Submitted: May 19, 2022 Decided: May 24, 2022
Before MOTZ and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Robert Lewis, Appellant Pro Se. Bradley O. Wood, WOMBLE BOND DICKINSON (US)
LLP, Winston-Salem, North Carolina; Christopher Donald Tomlinson, MOORE & VAN
ALLEN, PLLC, Charlotte, North Carolina; Angela Ruth Sheets, HARRIS, CREECH,
WARD & BLACKERBY, New Bern, North Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Robert Lewis appeals the district court’s order accepting the magistrate judge’s
recommendation and granting Appellees summary judgment on Lewis’ 42 U.S.C. § 1983
complaint. Lewis also challenges the district court’s orders denying his motions for
appointment of counsel, denying his motion to compel discovery, and striking his reply
briefs as untimely filed. We affirm.
Regarding the district court’s order granting Appellees summary judgment, the
district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B).
The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Lewis that failure to
file timely, 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);
Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 846-47 (4th Cir. 1985); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S.
140, 154-55 (1985). Although Lewis received proper notice and filed timely objections to
the magistrate judge’s recommendation, the district court found that the objections were
not specific to the particularized legal recommendations made by the magistrate judge.*
Accordingly, Lewis has waived appellate review of the district court’s order. See Martin,
* Lewis does not challenge this finding in his informal brief and has therefore waived
review of it on appeal. 4th Cir. R. 34(b) (limiting this Court’s review to issues raised in
informal brief); Jackson v. Lightsey, 775 F.3d 170, 177 (4th Cir. 2014) (same).

-- 2 of 3 --

3
858 F.3d at 245 (holding that, “to preserve for appeal an issue in a magistrate judge’s report,
a party must object to the finding or recommendation on that issue with sufficient
specificity so as reasonably to alert the district court of the true ground for the objection”
(internal quotation marks omitted)).
As to the remainder of the appeal, we conclude that the magistrate judge did not
abuse his discretion by denying Lewis’ motions for appointment of counsel. See Whisenant
v. Yuam, 739 F.2d 160, 163 (4th Cir. 1984) (establishing standard for appointment of
counsel in civil cases), abrogated on other grounds by Mallard v. U.S. Dist. Ct., 490 U.S.
296, 298 (1989). Nor did the magistrate judge abuse his discretion by denying Lewis’
motion to compel discovery as untimely filed. See Kitlinski v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 994
F.3d 224, 233 (4th Cir. 2021) (noting standard of review for discovery rulings), cert.
denied, 142 S. Ct. 778 (2022). Finally, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its
discretion by striking Lewis’ reply briefs as untimely filed. See Turner v. United States,
736 F.3d 274, 283 (4th Cir. 2013) (reviewing “a district court’s decisions pertaining to the
management of its own docket” for abuse of discretion).
We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment. 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.
AFFIRMED

-- 3 of 3 --