Don Harper v. A. Mansukhani
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 9:15-cv-01005-GRA Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999814572]. Mailed to: D. Harper. [15-7952]
Appeal: 15-7952
Doc: 7
Filed: 05/06/2016
Pg: 1 of 2
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-7952
DON ALTON HARPER,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
A. MANSUKHANI, Warden,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Beaufort.
G. Ross Anderson, Jr., Senior
District Judge. (9:15-cv-01005-GRA)
Submitted:
April 28, 2016
Decided:
May 6, 2016
Before MOTZ and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Don Alton Harper, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: 15-7952
Doc: 7
Filed: 05/06/2016
Pg: 2 of 2
PER CURIAM:
Don Alton Harper, a federal prisoner, appeals the district
court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge
and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2012) petition.
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 the petition be dismissed and advised Harper that
failure to file specific 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).
Harper has waived appellate review by failing to
file
objections
specific
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
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?