Ruiz v. Driver , 267 F. App'x 258 ( 2008 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-7714
GUILLERMO RUIZ,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
JOE D. DRIVER,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia, at Wheeling. Frederick P. Stamp, Jr.,
Senior District Judge. (5:07-cv-00084-FPS)
Submitted: February 21, 2008 Decided: February 27, 2008
Before MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Guillermo Ruiz, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Guillermo Ruiz, a federal prisoner, appeals the district
court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge
and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000) petition. 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 Ruiz that failure to timely file
specific 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). Ruiz has waived appellate review of the
magistrate judge’s conclusion regarding whether his claims were
cognizable under § 2241 by failing to lodge that specific objection
to the magistrate judge’s recommendation after receiving proper
notice of the consequences of the failure to object.
Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma
pauperis, we affirm the district court’s order. 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
- 2 -