Alex Abou-Hussein v. Ray Mabu

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 2:09-cv-01988-RMG Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998536770] [11-1038]

Alex Abou-Hussein v. Ray Mabu

Doc. 0

Case: 11-1038

Document: 5

Date Filed: 03/03/2011

Page: 1

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-1038

ALEX ABOU-HUSSEIN, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. RAY MABUS, Secretary of the Navy, Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Richard Mark Gergel, District Judge. (2:09-cv-01988-RMG)

Submitted:

February 24, 2011

Decided:

March 3, 2011

Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Alex Abou-Hussein, Appellant Pro Se. John Harris Douglas, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Dockets.Justia.com

Case: 11-1038

Document: 5

Date Filed: 03/03/2011

Page: 2

PER CURIAM: Alex Abou-Hussein appeals the district court's order denying relief on his Freedom of Information Act complaint. The

district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 636(b)(1)(B) (West 2006 & Supp. 2010). The

magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Abou-Hussein that failure to file timely specific objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the 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 v. warned of the 766 consequences F.2d 841, of

noncompliance.

Wright

Collins,

845-46

(4th Cir. 1985); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Abou-Hussein has waived appellate review by failing to file

specific objections after receiving proper notice. we affirm the judgment of the district court.

Accordingly,

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

2