Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-15-06518/USCOURTS-ca4-15-06518-0/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UNPUBLISHED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. 15-6518

EKERE INYANGETTE,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

TRAVIS BRAGG, Warden FCI Bennettsville,

Respondent – Appellee,

and

DARLENE DREW,

Respondent.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Greenville. Bruce H. Hendricks, District Judge. 

(6:13-cv-01219-BHH)

Submitted: July 21, 2015 Decided: July 24, 2015

Before WILKINSON and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ekere Inyangette, Appellant Pro Se. Barbara Murcier Bowens, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-6518 Doc: 8 Filed: 07/24/2015 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Ekere Inyangette, 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 (2012) petition. The 

district court referred this case to the magistrate judge pursuant 

to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2012). The magistrate judge 

recommended that relief be denied and advised Inyangette that 

failure to file specific objections to this recommendation would 

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). Inyangette has waived appellate review by failing 

to file specific objections after receiving proper notice. 

Accordingly, although we grant Inyangette’s motion to proceed in 

forma pauperis, we affirm the district court’s judgment. 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: 15-6518 Doc: 8 Filed: 07/24/2015 Pg: 2 of 2