John Bell v. Cecilia Reynolds

Filing 920090615

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-6186

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

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Anderson. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., Senior District Judge. (8:08-cv-03799-GRA)

Submitted:

May 20, 2009

Decided:

June 15, 2009

Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and SHEDD, 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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 denying relief James on Bell appeals the district of court's order The

his

petition

for

writ

mandamus.

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 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. file specific Despite this warning, Bell failed to to filed the magistrate that judge's did not

objections Rather, Bell

recommendation.

objections

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 magistrate timely filing of specific is objections to to a

judge's

recommendation

necessary

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 Bell

Cir. 1985); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985).

has waived appellate review by failing to timely file specific objections after receiving proper notice. Accordingly, we

affirm the judgment of the district court.

2

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal before contentions the court are and adequately argument presented not in aid the the materials decisional

would

process. AFFIRMED

3