Sullivan v. Ozmint
Sullivan v. Ozmint
Opinion
David Farrell Sullivan appeals the district court’s order adopting the recommendation of the magistrate judge to grant the Appellees’ motion for summary judgment in this action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000). Sullivan also appeals the district court’s paperless order denying his Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e) motion. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. * Accordingly, we affirm substantially for the reasons stated by the district court. Sullivan v. Ozmint, No. 6:04-cv-23266-HFF (D.S.C. Aug. 24, 2005 and Mar. 16, 2006). 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.
Sullivan failed to object specifically to the magistrate judge’s recommendation to deny relief for failure to exhaust administrative remedies on all claims except for Sullivan's environmental tobacco smoke (“ETS”) claim. Sullivan received proper notice of the consequences for failure to file specific objections; therefore, he waived review of the exhaustion issue. See Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985). Furthermore, Sullivan does not reference exhaustion in his informal brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b) (limiting review to issues raised in informal brief). Sullivan’s ETS claim is meritless for the reasons discussed by the magistrate judge and adopted by the district court.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.