Jenkins v. Eneje , 358 F. App'x 395 ( 2009 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-7765
ESAU JENKINS, a/k/a Esau Jenkins, Jr.,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
P. A. ENEJE; P. A. DECKER; M. RIVERA, Warden, FCI Estill,
Defendants – Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Anderson. Patrick Michael Duffy, District
Judge. (8:09-cv-02075-PMD)
Submitted: December 15, 2009 Decided: December 22, 2009
Before MICHAEL and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Esau Jenkins, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Esau Jenkins appeals the district court’s order
denying relief on his civil action. The district court referred
this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1)(B) (2006). The magistrate judge recommended that
relief be denied and advised Jenkins 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, Jenkins failed to object to the magistrate
judge’s 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).
Jenkins has waived appellate review by failing to timely file
specific objections after receiving proper notice. Accordingly,
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 the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
AFFIRMED
2