Bryson v. Brock ( 2003 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-6065
WILLIAM M. BRYSON, JR.,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
CAPTAIN BROCK, Anderson City Jail,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Greenville. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District
Judge. (CA-02-2539-6-20AK)
Submitted: March 20, 2002 Decided: March 31, 2003
Before WILLIAMS and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
William M. Bryson, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
William M. Bryson, Jr., a federal prisoner, appeals from the
district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the
magistrate judge and dismissing, without prejudice, his petition
filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000). The district court referred
this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1)(B) (2000). The magistrate judge recommended that relief
be denied and advised Bryson that failure to file timely, specific
objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review of
a district court order based upon the recommendation. Despite this
warning, Bryson failed to file specific objections to the
magistrate judge’s recommendation; he merely restated the claims
raised in his petition.
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). Bryson has waived appellate
review by failing to 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
2
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
3