Muhammad Mujahidin v. J. Harri

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 9:13-cv-00022-BHH Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999635495]. Mailed to: appellant and Jayme Leigh Shy. [15-6210]

Appeal: 15-6210

Doc: 12

Filed: 08/06/2015

Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-6210

MUHAMMAD AL-MUJAHIDIN, a/k/a John Hamilton,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
J. HARRIS; SHARONDA SUTTON; PERCY JONES; WARDEN STEVENSON;
LEROY CARTLEDGE; SERGEANT ESTERLINE; OFFICER
BECKETT, et
al, In Their Indivd Capacitys; OFFICER JOE FANT,
Defendants – Appellees,
and
INV BEACH,
Defendant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Beaufort.
Bruce H. Hendricks, District
Judge. (9:13-cv-00022-BHH)

Submitted:

June 30, 2015

Decided:

August 6, 2015

Before NIEMEYER and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Appeal: 15-6210

Doc: 12

Filed: 08/06/2015

Pg: 2 of 4

Muhammad Al-Mujahidin, Appellant Pro Se. Roy F. Laney, Thomas
Lowndes Pope, Jayme Leigh Shy, Damon C. Wlodarczyk, RILEY, POPE
& LANEY, LLC, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

Appeal: 15-6210

Doc: 12

Filed: 08/06/2015

Pg: 3 of 4

PER CURIAM:
Muhammad

Al-Mujahidin

appeals

the

district

court’s

order

accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying
relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint.

The district

court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2012).

The magistrate judge recommended

that relief be denied and advised Al-Mujahidin that failure to
file

timely

appellate

objections

review

of

a

to

this

district

recommendation
court

order

could

based

waive

upon

the

recommendation.
The timely filing of specific objections to a magistrate
judge’s recommendation is necessary to preserve appellate review
of the substance of that recommendation when the parties have
been warned of the consequences of noncompliance.

Wright v.

Collins,

see

766

F.2d

841,

845-46

(4th

Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985).
appellate

review

of

the

district

Cir.

1985);

also

Al-Mujahidin has waived
court’s

dismissal

of

his

excessive-force claim based on collateral estoppel by failing to
file specific objections on this issue after receiving proper
notice.
With

regard

to

Al-Mujahidin’s

other

claims,

reviewed the record and find no reversible error.
we

affirm

for

the

reasons

stated

by

the

we

have

Accordingly,

district

court.

Al-Mujahidin v. Harris, No. 9:13-cv-00022-BHH (D.S.C. Jan. 27,
3

Appeal: 15-6210

Doc: 12

2015).
legal
before

Filed: 08/06/2015

Pg: 4 of 4

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
contentions
this

court

are

adequately

and

argument

presented

would

not

in
aid

the
the

materials
decisional

process.
AFFIRMED

4