Enrique Martinez v. Kenny Atkinson

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 5:13-cv-00559-GRA. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999203207]. Mailed to: Enrique Martinez. [13-6824]

Appeal: 13-6824

Doc: 7

Filed: 09/27/2013

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-6824

ENRIQUE MARTINEZ,
Petitioner – Appellant,
v.
WARDEN ATKINSON, Kenny,
Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Orangeburg.
G. Ross Anderson, Jr., Senior
District Judge. (5:13-cv-00559-GRA)

Submitted:

September 24, 2013

Before NIEMEYER and
Senior Circuit Judge.

THACKER,

Decided:

Circuit

September 27, 2013

Judges,

and

HAMILTON,

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Enrique Martinez, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 13-6824

Doc: 7

Filed: 09/27/2013

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Enrique Martinez appeals the district court’s orders
accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying
relief on Martinez’s 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2006) petition and his
Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion.
find no reversible error.

We have reviewed the record and

The district court referred this case

to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 636(b)(1)(B)
(West 2006 & Supp. 2013).
relief

be

denied

and

The magistrate judge recommended that

advised

Martinez

that

failure

to

file

timely, specific objections to this recommendation could waive
appellate

review

recommendation.

of

a

district

Despite

this

court

order

warning,

based

Martinez

upon

only

the

filed

non-specific objections and failed to file specific objections
to the magistrate judge’s recommendation.
The
magistrate

timely

judge’s

filing

of

recommendation

specific
is

objections

necessary

to

to

a

preserve

appellate review of the substance of that recommendation when
the

parties

have

noncompliance.
Cir.

1985);

see

been

warned

of

the

consequences

of

Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th
also

Thomas

v.

Arn,

474

U.S.

140

(1985).

Martinez has waived appellate review of his claims by failing to
file specific objections after receiving proper notice.
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district
court.

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
2

Appeal: 13-6824

legal
before

Doc: 7

contentions
the

court

Filed: 09/27/2013

Pg: 3 of 3

are

adequately

and

argument

presented

would

not

in
aid

the
the

materials
decisional

process.

AFFIRMED

3