Gary Moore v. B. Antonelli ( 2019 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 19-6747
GARY MOORE,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
B. M. ANTONELLI, Warden,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
Charleston. Donald C. Coggins, Jr., District Judge. (2:18-cv-01397-DCC-MGB)
Submitted: October 15, 2019 Decided: October 17, 2019
Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and THACKER and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Gary Moore, Appellant Pro Se. Beth Drake, Acting United States Attorney, OFFICE OF
THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Federal prisoner Gary Moore appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his
28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2012) petition. The district court referred this case to a magistrate judge
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2012). The magistrate judge recommended that
relief be denied and advised Moore that failure to file timely 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. Wright v. Collins, 766
F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Moore
has waived appellate review by failing to file objections after receiving proper notice.
Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we affirm the district
court’s judgment. Because Moore has failed to provide sufficient evidence of unauthorized
withdrawals from his inmate account, we deny his motion for a court order prohibiting
further withdrawals.
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
2