Marshall v. Mitchell

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-8236
RONALD ERIC MARSHALL,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
M. MITCHELL; W. SMITH, individually and as Administrator
Edgefield Federal Prison Camp; P. JUSTICE, Individually and
as Correctional Case Manager Edgefield Federal Prison Camp;
D. A. WATKINS, individually and as Correctional Counselor
Edgefield Federal Prison Camp; MR. SERO, individually and as
Regional Director BOP Southeast Region Atlanta Georgia;
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston. David C. Norton, Chief District
Judge. (2:09-cv-01889-DCN)
Submitted: February 25, 2010 Decided: March 5, 2010
Before DUNCAN and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Ronald Eric Marshall, Appellant Pro Se. Beth Drake, Assistant
United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Ronald Eric Marshall appeals the district court’s
order denying relief on his complaint filed pursuant to
Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics,
403 U.S. 388 (1971). 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 Marshall 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,
Marshall 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).
Marshall 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
2
before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
AFFIRMED
3