Kingdawud Burgess v. Warden Atkinson

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 8:13-cv-01178-GRA Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999330214]. Mailed to: appellant. [13-7800]

Appeal: 13-7800

Doc: 7

Filed: 04/04/2014

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-7800

KINGDAWUD BURGESS,
Petitioner – Appellant,
v.
WARDEN ATKINSON, FCI Edgefield,
Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Anderson.
G. Ross Anderson, Jr., Senior
District Judge. (8:13-cv-01178-GRA)

Submitted:

March 28, 2014

Decided:

April 4, 2014

Before KING, AGEE, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Kingdawud Burgess, Appellant Pro Se. Marshall Prince, II,
Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 13-7800

Doc: 7

Filed: 04/04/2014

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Kingdawud Majahid Burgess, a federal prisoner, appeals
the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the
magistrate
(2012)

judge

and

petition.

reversible

denying

We

error.

have

In

relief

on

his

28

U.S.C.

reviewed

the

record

report

and

recommendation,

the

and

§ 2241

find

no
the

magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised
Burgess that failure to file timely, specific objections to this
recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court
order

based

upon

the

recommendation.

Despite

this

warning,

Burgess 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);

been

warned

of

the

consequences

of

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

see

also

Thomas

v.

Arn,

474

U.S.

140

(1985).

Burgess 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.
legal

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
contentions

are

adequately

2

presented

in

the

materials

Appeal: 13-7800

before

Doc: 7

this

Filed: 04/04/2014

court

and

Pg: 3 of 3

argument

would

not

aid

the

decisional

process.
AFFIRMED

3