Bilal Al-Haqq v. Oliver Washington , 675 F. App'x 366 ( 2017 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-7522
BILAL A. AL-HAQQ,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
SGT OLIVER WASHINGTON,
Defendant - Appellee,
and
JOHN PATE, Warden; MAJOR WALTER WORRICK; AW RANDALL
WILLIAMS; LT RICHARD JENKINS; LT TYLER; CPL MARVIN BRYANT;
MS. EDITH WETHERBEE; MRS. VIRGINIA GRUBBS; MS. V. JONES,
official and individual capacity,
Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston. Timothy M. Cain, District Judge.
(2:13-cv-02867-TMC)
Submitted: January 19, 2017 Decided: February 3, 2017
Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, DUNCAN, Circuit Judge, and DAVIS,
Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Bilal A. Al-Haqq, Appellant Pro Se. Mary Bass Lohr, James
Andrew Yoho, HOWELL, GIBSON & HUGHES, PA, Beaufort, South
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
Bilal A. Al-Haqq appeals the district court’s orders
denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint. The
district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2012). In two reports, the
magistrate judge recommended that claims against some defendants
be dismissed, and that relief be denied on the merits; the
magistrate judge advised Al-Haqq in both recommendations that
failure to timely file specific objections to the
recommendations 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 United
States v. Benton, 523 F.3d 424, 428 (4th Cir. 2008). Al-Haqq
has waived appellate review by failing to file objections to the
magistrate judge’s first report and recommendation and failing
to file specific objections to the magistrate judge’s second
report and recommendation after receiving proper notice.
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.
3
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
4