Michael Flanigan v. US
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
MICHAEL BRUNELL FLANIGAN, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS; REX BLOCKER, Physician FCI Edgefield; RICHARD KELSO, Lieutenant FCI Edgefield; JOHN J. LAMANNA, Warden FCI Edgefield; HARLEY G. LAPPIN, Director BOP; HECTOR LOPEZ, Physician FCI Edgefield, Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Anderson. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge. (8:08-cv-00941-RBH)
January 19, 2010
January 28, 2010
Before NIEMEYER, KING, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Michael Brunell Flanigan, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM: Michael Brunell Flanigan appeals the district court's order dismissing without prejudice his complaint filed pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of
Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). this case to a magistrate
The district court referred pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1)(B) (2006). the complaint be
The magistrate judge recommended that without prejudice and advised
Flanigan 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, Flanigan failed to object to the magistrate judge's recommendation. The magistrate timely filing of specific is objections to to a
appellate review of the substance of that recommendation when the parties have been warned of the consequences of
noncompliance. Cir. 1985); has see
Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th also Thomas v. Arn, review 474 by U.S. 140 (1985). to file we
affirm the judgment of the district court. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 2 presented in the materials
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?