Okpala v. Gal , 114 F. App'x 107 ( 2004 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-7004
O. GARRY OKPALA,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
STEVEN J. GAL, Warden of the Federal
Correctional Institution FCI Estill SC;
GRUBBS, Counselor at FCI Estill SC; RANEW,
Corrections Officer at FCI Estill SC; FOSSE,
Lt at FCI Estill SC; ADDUCCI, Disciplinary
Hearing Officer DHO at FCI Estill SC; FEDERAL
BUREAU OF PRISONS; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge.
(CA-01-4252-0-25BD)
Submitted: October 20, 2004 Decided: December 1, 2004
Before WILLIAMS and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
O. Garry Okpala, Appellant Pro Se. Barbara Murcier Bowens, OFFICE
OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for
Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
O. Garry Okpala appeals the district court’s orders
accepting the recommendations of the magistrate judge and denying
relief on Okpala’s complaint filed pursuant to Bivens v. Six
Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics,* 403 U.S. 388(1971), and the court’s order denying Okpala’s motions to
reconsider. Okpala also challenges the magistrate judge’s order
denying additional discovery. We have reviewed the record and the
opinions of the district court and magistrate judge and find no
reversible error in the denial of Okpala’s Bivens claims,
reconsideration, or discovery. Accordingly, we affirm for the
reasons stated by the district court and magistrate judge. See
Okpala v. Gal, No. CA-01-4252-0-25BD (D.S.C. filed June 28, 2002 &
entered July 1, 2002; filed Nov. 12, 2002 & entered Nov. 13, 2002;
filed Apr. 26, 2004 & entered Apr. 27, 2004; filed May 25, 2004 &
entered May 26, 2004; May 27, 2004).
With regard to Okpala’s claim under the Federal Tort
Claims Act (“FTCA”), the magistrate judge recommended that relief
*
Okpala asserted on appeal that he never received the
magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation recommending that the
district court dismiss certain of his claims under 28 U.S.C.A. §
1915(e)(2)(B) (West Supp. 2004) and § 1915A (West Supp. 2004), and
that the district court therefore erred in adopting the magistrate
judge’s recommendations. We have reviewed de novo the claims the
magistrate judge recommended the district court dismiss, and find
that the district court did not err in dismissing those claims.
See Veney v. Wyche, 293 F.3d 726, 730 (4th Cir. 2002) (holding that
de novo standard of review applies under § 1915A).
- 2 -
be denied and advised Okpala that failure to file timely objections
to this recommendation could waive appellate review of a district
court order based upon the recommendation. Despite this warning,
Okpala failed to specifically object to the magistrate judge’s
recommended disposition of his FTCA claim. 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 that failure to
object will waive appellate review. See Wright v. Collins, 766
F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S.
140 (1985). Okpala has waived appellate review by failing to file
objections after receiving proper notice. Accordingly, we affirm
this portion of the district court’s judgment. 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 -