Derek Gallop, Jr. v. Hector Joyner , 707 F. App'x 142 ( 2017 )


Menu:
  •                                     UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 17-6816
    DEREK GALLOP, JR.,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    v.
    HECTOR JOYNER, Warden FCI Estill, SC,
    Respondent - Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
    Florence. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., Senior District Judge. (4:16-cv-03865-JFA)
    Submitted: November 30, 2017                                Decided: December 22, 2017
    Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and MOTZ and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Derek Gallop, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Barbara Murcier Bowens, Assistant United States
    Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina,
    for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Derek Gallop, Jr., appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment to
    the Respondent and dismissing his 
    28 U.S.C. § 2241
     (2012) petition. The district court
    referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 
    28 U.S.C. § 636
    (b)(1)(B) (2012). The
    magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Gallop 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). Gallop
    has waived appellate review by failing to file specific objections after receiving proper
    notice. Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, 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 before this court and argument
    would not aid the decisional process.
    AFFIRMED
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 17-6816

Citation Numbers: 707 F. App'x 142

Judges: Gregory, Motz, Per Curiam, Shedd

Filed Date: 12/22/2017

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/19/2024