Justin Martin Jackson v. Kenneth Boone

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--granting Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [999963105-2] Originating case number: 2:16-cv-02099-MBS Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000037927]. Mailed to: Justin Martin Jackson FLORENCE COUNTY DETENTION CENTER 6719 Friendfield Road Effingham, SC 29541-0000. [16-7330]

Appeal: 16-7330

Doc: 10

Filed: 03/08/2017

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-7330

JUSTIN MARTIN JACKSON,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
KENNETH BOONE, Sheriff of Florence County,
Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston.
Margaret B. Seymour, Senior
District Judge. (2:16-cv-02099-MBS)

Submitted:

February 28, 2017

Decided:

March 8, 2017

Before MOTZ and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit
Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Justin Martin Jackson, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-7330

Doc: 10

Filed: 03/08/2017

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Justin Martin Jackson appeals the district court’s order
accepting

the

recommendation

of

the

magistrate

dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2012) petition.

judge

and

The magistrate

judge recommended dismissing the petition and advised Jackson
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.

United States

v. Midgette, 478 F.3d 616, 621–22 (4th Cir. 2007).

Jackson

waived appellate review by failing to file any objections after
receiving proper notice.

Accordingly, although we grant leave

to proceed in forma pauperis, 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