Michael Flanigan v. US

Filing 920100128

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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