UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 - 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

* 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,

(4th Cir. 1984).

- 3 -