Kingdawud Burgess v. Warden Atkinson , 565 F. App'x 161 ( 2014 )


Menu:
  •                               UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 13-7800
    KINGDAWUD BURGESS,
    Petitioner – Appellant,
    v.
    WARDEN ATKINSON, FCI Edgefield,
    Respondent - Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    South Carolina, at Anderson.     G. Ross Anderson, Jr., Senior
    District Judge. (8:13-cv-01178-GRA)
    Submitted:   March 28, 2014                 Decided:   April 4, 2014
    Before KING, AGEE, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Kingdawud Burgess, Appellant Pro Se. Marshall Prince, II,
    Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for
    Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Kingdawud Majahid Burgess, 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
    (2012)    petition.         We    have        reviewed       the    record       and    find   no
    reversible       error.          In     the    report        and    recommendation,            the
    magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised
    Burgess that failure to file timely, specific objections to this
    recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court
    order    based    upon     the    recommendation.              Despite          this    warning,
    Burgess failed to file specific 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.          Wright v. Collins, 
    766 F.2d 841
    , 845-46 (4th
    Cir.    1985);    see     also        Thomas    v.   Arn,      
    474 U.S. 140
         (1985).
    Burgess has waived appellate review of his claims by failing to
    file specific objections after receiving proper notice.
    Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district
    court.     We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
    legal    contentions       are        adequately     presented           in   the      materials
    2
    before   this   court   and   argument   would   not   aid   the   decisional
    process.
    AFFIRMED
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 13-7800

Citation Numbers: 565 F. App'x 161

Filed Date: 4/4/2014

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 1/13/2023