Williams v. United States , 313 F. App'x 581 ( 2008 )


Menu:
  •                              UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 08-6350
    MARGARET VIOLET JENKINS WILLIAMS,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    v.
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Respondent - Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
    District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. John Preston Bailey,
    Chief District Judge. (3:07-cv-00152-JPB-JSK)
    Submitted:   July 31, 2008                 Decided:   August 8, 2008
    Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Margaret Violet Jenkins Williams, Appellant Pro Se.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Margaret Violet Jenkins Williams appeals the district
    court’s order adopting the magistrate judge’s recommendation and
    denying Williams’ petition for a writ of mandamus.    The district
    court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 
    28 U.S.C. § 636
    (b)(1)(B) (2000).     The magistrate judge recommended
    that relief be denied, and advised Williams that failure to file
    timely objections to this recommendation could waive appellate
    review of a district court order based upon the recommendation.
    Despite this warning, Williams failed to file objections to the
    magistrate judge’s 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.     Wells v. Shriners
    Hosp., 
    109 F.3d 198
    , 201 (4th Cir. 1997); see also Thomas v. Arn,
    
    474 U.S. 140
     (1985).    Williams has waived appellate review by
    failing to timely file specific objections after receiving proper
    notice. Accordingly, although we grant Williams’ motion to proceed
    on appeal in forma pauperis, we affirm the judgment of the district
    court.
    - 2 -
    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
    - 3 -
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 08-6350

Citation Numbers: 313 F. App'x 581

Judges: Gregory, Niemeyer, Per Curiam, Traxler

Filed Date: 8/8/2008

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/7/2023