John Bell v. Cecilia Reynolds

Filing 920080509

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-7737

JOHN JAMES BELL, a/k/a Omar Abdel-Al-Mumit, Petitioner - Appellant, v. CECILIA REYNOLDS, Warden, Kershaw Correctional Institution, Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Anderson. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., District Judge. (8:07-cv-02776-GRA)

Submitted:

April 22, 2008

Decided:

May 9, 2008

Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

John James Bell, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM: John James Bell appeals the district court's order

denying relief on his petitions for writ of coram nobis and for writ of mandamus. The district court referred this case to a The

magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2000).

magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Bell that failure to file timely and specific objections to this

recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the recommendation. Despite this warning, Bell

failed to file specific objections to the magistrate judge's recommendation. Rather, Bell filed objections that did not address the magistrate judge's findings and were construed by the district court as a general objection to the magistrate judge's report and 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). Bell 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 deny Bell's request for appointment of counsel and dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions

- 2 -

are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

- 3 -