Gumbs v. United States , 304 F. App'x 167 ( 2008 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-7734
DARRELL ANTONIO GUMBS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendant – Appellee,
and
HARLEY G. LAPPIN, Director of the B.O.P. in his individual
and official capacity; Y. APONTE, AHSA at FCC Petersburg -
Low in both her individual and official capacity; ELIZABETH
PANAGUITON, P/A at FCC Petersburg - Low in both her
individual and official capacity; K. LAYBOURN, FCC
Petersburg-Low in both her individual and official capacity;
V. ADAMS, Warden at FCC Petersburg in both her individual
and official capacity; KIM WHITE, Regional Director of the
Eastern District in both her individual and official
capacity; HARRELL WATTS, Administrative Remedy Coordinator
of the Bureau of Prisons Central Office (for 6/8/2005 - name
unknown) in both his/her individual and official
capacities,
Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca Beach Smith, District
Judge. (2:06-cv-00148-RBS-FBS)
Submitted: December 11, 2008 Decided: December 18, 2008
Before NIEMEYER, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Darrell Antonio Gumbs, Appellant Pro Se. George Maralan Kelley,
III, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
Darrell Antonio Gumbs appeals the district court’s
final order and judgment accepting the recommendation of the
magistrate judge and dismissing his complaint. We have reviewed
the record and find no reversible error. While the magistrate
judge advised Gumbs that failure to timely file specific written
objections to the report would result in waiver of the right to
appeal from the district court’s judgment, Gumbs failed to file
any objections to the magistrate judge’s report and
recommendation. Therefore, Gumbs waived appellate review of his
claims. See United States v. Midgette, 478 F.3d 616, 621-22
(4th Cir.), cert. denied, 127 S. Ct. 3032 (2007). Moreover,
Gumbs’ claims of attorney error provide no basis for relief.
See Sanchez v. United States Postal Serv., 785 F.2d 1236, 1237
(5th Cir. 1986) (holding that there is no right to effective
assistance of counsel in civil cases). Accordingly, we affirm.
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