Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-15-07596/USCOURTS-ca4-15-07596-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 

---

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-7596

AHMAD MUHAMMAD-ALI,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

KU KLUXS KLANS; CORRECT CARE SOLUTIONS; AIKEN COUNTY; SOUTH 

CAROLINA, THE STATE OF; AIKEN PUBLIC SAFETY; AIKEN COUNTY 

SHERIFFS DEPARTMENT; NORTH AUGUSTA PUBLIC SAFETY; BUCANAN 

AUTO; DEPARTMENT OF MENTAL HEALTH; AIKEN COUNTY DETENTION 

CENTER,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Aiken. Mary G. Lewis, District Judge. 

(1:15-cv-00308-MGL)

Submitted: December 17, 2015 Decided: December 22, 2015

Before DIAZ and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ahmad Muhammad-Ali, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-7596 Doc: 8 Filed: 12/22/2015 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Ahmad Muhammad-Ali appeals the district court’s order 

denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint. 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 relief be denied and advised Muhammad-Ali 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. Wright v. 

Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985); see also Thomas 

v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Muhammad-Ali has waived appellate 

review by failing to file specific objections after receiving 

proper notice. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the 

district court. 

We deny Muhammad-Ali’s motion for transcripts at government 

expense. 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

Appeal: 15-7596 Doc: 8 Filed: 12/22/2015 Pg: 2 of 2