Darrell Gumbs v. US
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
DARRELL ANTONIO GUMBS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant Appellee, and HARLEY G. LAPPIN, Director of the B.O.P. in his individual and official capacity; Y. APONTE, AHSA at FCC Petersburg Low in both her individual and official capacity; ELIZABETH PANAGUITON, P/A at FCC Petersburg - Low in both her individual and official capacity; K. LAYBOURN, FCC Petersburg-Low in both her individual and official capacity; V. ADAMS, Warden at FCC Petersburg in both her individual and official capacity; KIM WHITE, Regional Director of the Eastern District in both her individual and official capacity; HARRELL WATTS, Administrative Remedy Coordinator of the Bureau of Prisons Central Office (for 6/8/2005 - name unknown) in both his/her individual and official capacities, Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca Beach Smith, District Judge. (2:06-cv-00148-RBS-FBS)
December 11, 2008
December 18, 2008
Before NIEMEYER, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Darrell Antonio Gumbs, Appellant Pro Se. George Maralan Kelley, III, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM: Darrell Antonio Gumbs appeals the district court's
final order and judgment accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing his complaint. the record and find no reversible error. We have reviewed
While the magistrate
judge advised Gumbs that failure to timely file specific written objections to the report would result in waiver of the right to appeal from the district court's judgment, Gumbs failed to file any objections to the magistrate judge's report and
Therefore, Gumbs waived appellate review of his
See United States v. Midgette, 478 F.3d 616, 621-22 Moreover,
(4th Cir.), cert. denied, 127 S. Ct. 3032 (2007).
Gumbs' claims of attorney error provide no basis for relief. See Sanchez v. United States Postal Serv., 785 F.2d 1236, 1237 (5th Cir. 1986) (holding that there is no right to effective assistance of counsel in civil cases). We dispense with oral argument Accordingly, we affirm. the facts and legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?