Opinion
21-7625
04-01-2022
AKEEM JAMAL EDWARDS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. WARDEN HUTCHINSON, FCI Edgefield, Respondent-Appellee.
Akeem Jamal Edwards, Appellant Pro Se.
UNPUBLISHED
Submitted: March 29, 2022
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Beaufort. Donald C. Coggins, Jr., District Judge. (9:21-cv-01113-DCC)
Akeem Jamal Edwards, Appellant Pro Se.
Before HARRIS, QUATTLEBAUM, and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM.
Akeem Jamal Edwards, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court's order denying relief on 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 relief be denied and advised Edwards 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 Edwards received proper notice and filed timely objections to the magistrate judge's recommendation, he has waived appellate review because the objections were not specific to the particularized legal recommendations made by the magistrate judge. See Martin, 858 F.3d at 245 (holding that, "to preserve for appeal an issue in a magistrate judge's report, a party must object to the finding or recommendation on that issue with sufficient specificity so as reasonably to alert the district court of the true ground for the objection" (internal quotation marks omitted)); see also Massey v. Ojaniit, 759 F.3d 343, 352 (4th Cir. 2014) (stating that failure to file specific objections is not cured by district court's de novo review). 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.