United States v. Michael Whiterock ( 2013 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-7446
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Petitioner - Appellee,
v.
MICHAEL GREY WHITEROCK,
Respondent - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan,
District Judge. (5:09-hc-02163-FL-JL)
Submitted: June 7, 2013 Decided: June 18, 2013
Before MOTZ, KING, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, G. Alan DuBois,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Eric J. Brignac, Research and
Writing Specialist, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER,
Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. Thomas G. Walker,
United States Attorney, R. A. Renfer, Jr., Assistant United
States Attorney, Michael James, Assistant United States
Attorney, Seth M. Wood, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE
OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Michael Whiterock seeks to appeal an order mandating his
submission to a psychological interview to determine the
appropriateness of civil commitment pursuant to the Adam Walsh
Act, 18 U.S.C. § 4248.
A magistrate judge, over the objection of Whiterock’s
counsel, ordered Whiterock to submit to an interview by a
government psychologist. Whiterock filed no objection to this
order. Instead, he submitted to the interview. The government
psychologist reported that, in his view, Whiterock met all the
criteria for civil commitment. Relying on that report, the
district court ordered Whiterock be civilly committed.
Whiterock maintains that the Government has no power to
“certify someone as a sexually dangerous person and then force
him to submit, against his will, to a psychological interview
conducted by a government agent.” He contends that an order
doing so violates a person’s due process rights to privacy and
to refuse medical treatment.
We do not reach these arguments because Whiterock has
waived his right to appeal by failing to object to the order of
the magistrate judge. We recognize that the magistrate’s order
did not inform Whiterock of the ten-day deadline for filing
objections. This might well have supplied reason for failing to
file timely objections to the order if Whiterock had proceeded
2
pro se. See Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-47 (4th Cir.
1985). But binding circuit precedent holds that in a case
involving “counseled parties,” like that at hand, even if the
magistrate fails to inform a party of the ten-day rule, “[i]f
written objections . . . are not filed with the district court
within ten days, a party waives [hi]s right to an appeal.”
Wells v. Shriners Hosp., 109 F.3d 198, 200-01 (4th Cir. 1997).
Accordingly, we dismiss Whiterock’s appeal. 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.
DISMISSED
3