Eric Morrison v. Eric Wilson

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 4:14-cv-03672-TMC. Copies to all parties and the district court. [999629134]. Mailed to: Eric Morrison. [15-6812]

Appeal: 15-6812

Doc: 10

Filed: 07/28/2015

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-6812

ERIC WILFORD MORRISON,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
WARDEN ERIC WILSON, CEO; FEDERAL CORRECTIONAL COMPLEX, LOW;
PETERSBURG LOW, INC.; FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS, INC.,
Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence.
Timothy M. Cain, District Judge.
(4:14-cv-03672-TMC)

Submitted:

July 23, 2015

Decided:

July 28, 2015

Before NIEMEYER and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Eric Wilford Morrison, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-6812

Doc: 10

Filed: 07/28/2015

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Eric Wilford Morrison appeals the district court’s order
dismissing without prejudice his civil action seeking relief under
Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics,
403 U.S. 388 (1971), and the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C.
§§ 1346(b)(1), 2671-2680
this

case

to

a

(2012).

magistrate

§ 636(b)(1)(B) (2012).

The district court referred

judge

pursuant

to

28

U.S.C.

The magistrate judge recommended that the

case be dismissed and advised Morrison that failure to file timely
objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review of
a district court order based 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,

766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474
U.S. 140 (1985).

Morrison has waived appellate review by failing

to file timely, specific objections after receiving proper notice.
Accordingly, 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 before this
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED

2