Ronald Marshall v. M. Mitchell

Filing 920100305

Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-8236 RONALD ERIC MARSHALL, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. M. MITCHELL; W. SMITH, individually and as Administrator Edgefield Federal Prison Camp; P. JUSTICE, Individually and as Correctional Case Manager Edgefield Federal Prison Camp; D. A. WATKINS, individually and as Correctional Counselor Edgefield Federal Prison Camp; MR. SERO, individually and as Regional Director BOP Southeast Region Atlanta Georgia; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. David C. Norton, Chief District Judge. (2:09-cv-01889-DCN) Submitted: February 25, 2010 Decided: March 5, 2010 Before DUNCAN and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ronald Eric Marshall, Appellant Pro Se. Beth Drake, Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Ronald order denying Eric relief Marshall on his appeals the district court's to complaint filed pursuant Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). The 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 Marshall that failure to file timely objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the to recommendation. object to the Despite this warning, judge's Marshall failed magistrate 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); see Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Marshall has waived appellate review by failing to timely file specific objections after receiving proper notice. we affirm the judgment of the district court. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials Accordingly, 2 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?