Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-07-07714/USCOURTS-ca4-07-07714-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 

---

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-7714

GUILLERMO RUIZ,

 Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

JOE D. DRIVER,

 Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern

District of West Virginia, at Wheeling. Frederick P. Stamp, Jr.,

Senior District Judge. (5:07-cv-00084-FPS)

Submitted: February 21, 2008 Decided: February 27, 2008

Before MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Guillermo Ruiz, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 07-7714 Doc: 12 Filed: 02/27/2008 Pg: 1 of 2
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Guillermo Ruiz, a federal prisoner, appeals the district

court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge

and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000) petition. 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 Ruiz 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). Ruiz has waived appellate review of the

magistrate judge’s conclusion regarding whether his claims were

cognizable under § 2241 by failing to lodge that specific objection

to the magistrate judge’s recommendation after receiving proper

notice of the consequences of the failure to object. 

Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma

pauperis, we affirm the district court’s order. 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

Appeal: 07-7714 Doc: 12 Filed: 02/27/2008 Pg: 2 of 2