Michael Flanigan v. US

Filing 920100128

Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-7950 MICHAEL BRUNELL FLANIGAN, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; FEDERAL BUREAU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) Submitted: January 19, 2010 Decided: 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 Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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. judge 636(b)(1)(B) (2006). the complaint be The magistrate judge recommended that without prejudice and advised dismissed 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 judge's recommendation necessary preserve 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 Flanigan objections waived appellate failing after receiving proper notice. Accordingly, 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 before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 3

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?