Royce Johnson v. Warden

USCA4 Appeal: 22-6939 Doc: 10 Filed: 12/27/2022 Pg: 1 of 2
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 22-6939
ROYCE THERMON JOHNSON,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
WARDEN, FCI McDowell,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at
Bluefield. David A. Faber, Senior District Judge. (1:19-cv-00403)
Submitted: December 20, 2022 Decided: December 27, 2022
Before NIEMEYER and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit
Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Royce Thermon Johnson, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-6939 Doc: 10 Filed: 12/27/2022 Pg: 2 of 2
PER CURIAM:
Royce Thermon Johnson appeals the district court’s order dismissing his 28 U.S.C.
§ 2241 petition. The district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). The magistrate judge recommended that the petition be dismissed
and advised Johnson that failure to file timely, specific objections to this recommendation
could waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the 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. Martin v. Duffy, 858
F.3d 239, 245 (4th Cir. 2017); Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 846-47 (4th Cir. 1985); see
also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 154-55 (1985). Although Johnson received proper
notice and filed objections to the magistrate judge’s recommendation, he has waived
appellate review because the objections were untimely. 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 this court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
AFFIRMED
2