Victor Sanchez Garcia v. B.J. Meek

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 5:16-cv-02570-HMH Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999990728]. Mailed to: Victor Sanchez Garcia FCI WILLIAMSBURG FEDERAL CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION P. O. Box 340 Salters, SC 29590-0000. [16-7146]

Appeal: 16-7146

Doc: 5

Filed: 12/20/2016

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-7146

VICTOR SANCHEZ GARCIA,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
B. J. MEEKS,
Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Orangeburg.
Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior
District Judge. (5:16-cv-02570-HMH)

Submitted:

December 15, 2016

Decided:

December 20, 2016

Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Victor Sanchez Garcia, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-7146

Doc: 5

Filed: 12/20/2016

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Victor Sanchez Garcia appeals the district court’s order
dismissing

his

prejudice.

28

The

U.S.C.

district

§ 2241
court

(2012)
referred

petition
this

without

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
without prejudice and advised Garcia that failure to timely 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).

Garcia has waived appellate review

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 legal
contentions

are

adequately

presented

in

the

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED

2