Jamel Law v. J. Ormond ( 2020 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 20-6343
JAMEL LAW,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
J. RAY ORMOND, Warden,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Richmond. M. Hannah Lauck, District Judge. (3:18-cv-00328-MHL-RCY)
Submitted: August 25, 2020 Decided: August 28, 2020
Before KING and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jamel C. Law, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Jamel C. Law appeals the district court’s order dismissing without prejudice his 28
U.S.C. § 2241 motion. * The district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and
advised Law that failure to file timely, 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. Martin v. Duffy, 858
F.3d 239, 245 (4th Cir. 2017); Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 846-47 (4th Cir. 1985); see
also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 154-55 (1985). Law has waived appellate review by
failing to file objections to the magistrate judge’s recommendation after receiving proper
notice.
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. 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
*
The district court concluded that Law failed to satisfy the test in United States v.
Wheeler, 886 F.3d 415, 429 (4th Cir. 2018). We conclude that the dismissal is a final,
appealable order because “the grounds [for] dismissal make clear that no amendment could
cure the defects in [Law’s] case.” Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union
392, 10 F.3d 1064, 1066 (4th Cir. 1993) (internal quotation marks omitted).
2