Case ID: f-appx_276/html/0319-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

John James BELL, a/k/a Omar Abdel-Al-Mumit, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Cecilia REYNOLDS, Warden, Kershaw Correctional Institution, Respondent-Appellee.
    No. 07-7737.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: April 22, 2008.
    Decided: May 9, 2008.
    John James Bell, Appellant Pro Se.
    Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
   PER CURIAM:

John James Bell appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his petitions for writ of coram nobis and for writ of mandamus. The district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2000). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Bell that failure to file timely and specific objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the recommendation. Despite this warning, Bell failed to file specific objections to the magistrate judge’s recommendation. Rather, Bell filed objections that did not address the magistrate judge’s findings and were construed by the district court as a general objection to the magistrate judge’s report and 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 Cm. 1985); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 106 S.Ct. 466, 88 L.Ed.2d 435 (1985). Bell has waived appellate review by failing to timely file specific objections after receiving proper notice. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.

We deny Bell’s request for appointment of counsel and dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED.