Petition for Writ of Certiorari — David Greene, Jr., Petitioner v. IGC Ms. Pulliam, et al.

USCA4 Appeal: 25-1552

Doc: 7

Filed: 08/25/2025

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 25-1552

DAVID GREENE, JR.,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

IGC MS. PULLIAM; MS. KRUEGER, Warden’s Secretary; ADA DAVID

MARTINEZ; WARDEN KENNETH SHARPE; REGIONAL DIRECTOR

CLARKE; MAJOR ROBERTS; ASSOC. WARDEN CHUVALA; CAPTAIN

JOHNSON; MAJOR MEEKS; LT. MCFADDEN,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence.

Bruce H. Hendricks, District Judge. (4:24-cv-05308-BHH)

Submitted: August 21, 2025

Decided: August 25,2025

Before WILKINSON, HARRIS, and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

David Greene, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 25-1552

Doc: 7

Filed: 08/25/2025

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:

David Greene, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the magistrate

judge’s recommendation and dismissing with prejudice Greene’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983

complaint for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e), 1915A. We dismiss the

appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was not timely filed.

In civil cases, parties have 30 days after the entry of the district court’s final

judgment or order to note an appeal, Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A), unless the district court

extends the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5) or reopens the appeal period under

Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). “[T]he timely filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is a

jurisdictional requirement.” Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 214 (2007).

The district court entered its order on April 10, 2025. Greene filed the notice of

appeal on May 14, 2025. Because Greene failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to

obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we dismiss the appeal.

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.

DISMISSED

2

FILED: August 25,2025

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 25-1552

(4:24-cv-05308-BHH)

DAVID GREENE, JR.

Plaintiff - Appellant

v.

IGC MS. PULLIAM; MS. KRUEGER, Warden's Secretary; ADA DAVID

MARTINEZ; WARDEN KENNETH SHARPE; REGIONAL DIRECTOR

CLARKE; MAJOR ROBERTS; ASSOC. WARDEN CHUVALA; CAPTAIN

JOHNSON; MAJOR MEEKS; LT. MCFADDEN

Defendants - Appellees

JUDGMENT

In accordance with the decision of this court, this appeal is dismissed.

This judgment shall take effect upon issuance of this court's mandate in

accordance with Fed. R. App. P, 41.

/s/ NWAMAKA ANOWL CLERK

PER CURIAM:

David Greene, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the magistrate

judge’s recommendation and dismissing with prejudice Greene’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983

complaint for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e), 1915A. We dismiss the

appeal for lack ofjurisdiction because the notice of appeal was not timely filed.

In civil cases, parties have 30 days after the entry of the district court’s final

judgment or order to note an appeal, Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A), unless the district court

extends the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5) or reopens the appeal period under

Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). “[T]he timely filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is a

jurisdictional requirement.” Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205,214 (2007).

The district court entered its order on April 10, 2025. Greene filed the notice of

appeal on May 14, 2025. Because Greene failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to

obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we dismiss the appeal.

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.

DISMISSED

2

4:24-cv-05308-BHH

Date Filed 04/10/25

Entry Number 28

Page 1 of 4

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA

David Greene, Jr.,

)

)

Plaintiff,

)

)

v.

)

)

IGC Ms. Pulliam,

)

Ms. Krueger, Warden’s Secretary,

)

ADA David Martinez,

)

Warden Kenneth Sharpe, Regional

)

Director Clarke, Major Roberts, Assoc. )

Warden Chuvula, Captain Johnson,

)

Major Meeks, Lt. McFadden,

)

Civil Action No. 4:24-cv-5308-BHH

ORDER

)

Defendants.

)

________________)

This matter is before the Court upon Plaintiff David Greene, Jr.’s (“Plaintiff”) pro se

complaint. (ECF No. 1.) In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule

73.02(B)(2), D.S.C., the matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge for

preliminary review.

On October4,2024, the Magistrate Judge issued a proper form order, giving Plaintiff

the opportunity to identify the John Doe Defendants named in his initial complaint, and

Plaintiff submitted service documents with named Defendants. (See ECF Nos. 6, 9.) On

October 17, 2024, the Magistrate Judge issued a second proper form order instructing

Plaintiff to file an amended complaint. (ECF No. 12.) Plaintiff filed an amended complaint,

but it appeared to be missing attachments as to the requested relief and as to an alleged

affidavit, so the Court ordered Plaintiff to file any missing attachments to render a full

amended complaint.

(ECF Nos. 15, 17.) Plaintiff filed an additional attachment in

November of 2024 (ECF No. 15-2), but on November 12, 2024, the Magistrate Judge

4:24-cv-05308-BHH

Date Filed 04/10/25

Entry Number 28

Page 2 of 4

issued a report and recommendation ("Report”), outlining the issues and recommending

that the Court summarily dismiss this action for failure to state a claim upon which relief can

be granted. (ECF No. 22.)

In the Report, the Magistrate Judge outlined Plaintiffs allegations, which pertain to

events occurring in state prison between November 2022 and June 2023.

As the

Magistrate Judge noted, Plaintiff alleges he is a diabetic and that he required a unique

dietary pattern to stabilize his blood sugar levels. According to Plaintiff, he was denied

diabetic meals, which resulted in the worsening of his health. As to these allegations,

however, the Magistrate Judge found that Plaintiff does not allege any personal action

regarding meals and any of the named Defendants. (ECF No. 22 at 4.) Likewise, the

Magistrate Judge found that Plaintiff does not allege any personal action on the part of the

named Defendants with regard to his general claim that he was denied access to a shower

with special accommodations. (Id. at 5.) Furthermore, to the extent Plaintiff is attempting

to allege supervisory liability, the Magistrate Judge explained that “Plaintiff does not allege

who was the denier of showers such that it is unclear whether the denier was a subordinate

of the named Defendants." (Id. at 6.)

As to Plaintiffs claim that his cell mate was on drugs, the Magistrate Judge

explained that Plaintiff does not allege any injury from his cell mate to support a failure-toprotect claim. And the Magistrate Judge found that Plaintiff makes no specific allegations

about the ADA, such as which accommodations were requested, which were denied, and

whether the requested accommodations were reasonable. (Id. at 7.)

Attached to the Magistrate Judge’s Report was a notice advising Plaintiff of the right

2

4:24-cv-05308-BHH

Date Filed 04/10/25

Entry Number 28

Page 3 of 4

to file written objections to the Report within fourteen days of being served with a copy.1

On November 26,2024, Plaintiff filed objections to the Report, wherein he asserts that the

Magistrate Judge unfairly assessed and misinterpreted his claims. (EOF No. 24 at 1.)

Critically, however, nowhere does Plaintiff point to any specific portion of the Report to

which he objects. Rather, he appears to generally object to the Report as a whole,

asserting that his case is not frivolous; that his claims are clear and coherent; and that a

causal connection exists between the conduct alleged and the Defendants involved. {Id. at

1-2.) Plaintiff further states that “it should be clear that Plaintiff has indeed detailed a

substantial claim that necessitates action,” but he offers no additional specific information

to support his claims, whether pursuant to the Constitution or the Americans with

Disabilities Act. After review, therefore, the Court finds Plaintiff’s unavailing. Stated plainly,

Plaintiff does not point to any legal or factual errors in the Magistrate Judge’s analysis, and

the Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge that Plaintiff’s complaint is subject to summary

dismissal for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted..

Accordingly, the Court adopts and specifically incorporates the Magistrate

Judge’s Report (ECF No. 22); the Court overrules Plaintiff’s objections (ECF No. 24);

and the Court dismisses this action with prejudice under § 1915(e) and § 1915A and

1The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to the Court. The recommendation has no

presumptive weight, and the responsibility to make a final determination remains with the Court. Mathews

v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261 (1976). The Court is charged with making a de novo determination only of those

portions of the Report to which specific objections are made, and the Court may accept, reject, or modify, in

whole or in part, the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, or recommit the matter to the Magistrate Judge

with instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). In the absence of specific objections, the Court reviews the matter

only for clear error. See Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005)

(stating that “in the absence of a timely filed objection, a district court need not conduct a de novo review, but

instead must ‘only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the

recommendation."’) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee's note).

3

4:24-cv-05308-BHH

Date Filed 04/10/25

Entry Number 28

Page 4 of 4

without issuance and service of process.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/Bruce H. Hendricks

United States District Judge

April 8, 2025

Charleston, South Carolina

4