Case ID: f-appx_56/html/0188-01.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

William M. BRYSON, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, and Leemac, Incorporated; Amber, Incorporated; Bryson Accounting Company, Incorporated; EJ & WM, Incorporated; Law Offices of Kenyon & Lusk; Tax Lien Acquisitions, Incorporated, Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 02-7806.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 20, 2003.
    Decided Feb. 27, 2003.
    William M. Bryson, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.
    Before LUTTIG, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
   PER CURIAM.

William Bryson appeals from the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000). 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 Bryson that failure to file timely, specific objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the recommendation. Despite this warning, Bryson failed to file specific objections to the magistrate judge’s 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 that failure to object will waive appellate review. See Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir.1985); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 106 S.Ct. 466, 88 L.Ed.2d 435 (1985). Bryson 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 the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED.