Bell v. Reynolds , 335 F. App'x 318 ( 2009 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-6186
JOHN JAMES BELL, a/k/a Omar Abdel-Al-Mumit,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
CECILIA REYNOLDS, Warden of Kershaw Correctional
Institution,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Anderson. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., Senior
District Judge. (8:08-cv-03799-GRA)
Submitted: May 20, 2009 Decided: June 15, 2009
Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
John James Bell, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
John James Bell appeals the district court’s order
denying relief on his petition for writ of mandamus. The
district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2006). The magistrate judge
recommended that relief be denied and advised Bell that failure
to file timely and specific objections to this recommendation
could waive appellate review of a district court order based
upon the recommendation. Despite this warning, Bell failed to
file specific objections to the magistrate judge’s
recommendation. Rather, Bell filed objections that did not
address the magistrate judge’s findings and were construed by
the district court as a general objection to the magistrate
judge’s report and 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). Bell
has waived appellate review by failing to timely file specific
objections after receiving proper notice. Accordingly, 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