Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-15-06406/USCOURTS-ca4-15-06406-0/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UNPUBLISHED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. 15-6406

CURTIS LEE WATSON,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

TERRY O’BRIEN,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern

District of West Virginia, at Clarksburg. Irene M. Keeley,

District Judge. (1:14-cv-00114-IMK-JSK)

Submitted: July 23, 2015 Decided: July 27, 2015

Before NIEMEYER and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Curtis Lee Watson, Appellant Pro Se. Helen Campbell Altmeyer, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Wheeling, West Virginia; Erin K. 

Reisenweber, Assistant United States Attorney, Martinsburg, West 

Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Dismissed by Supreme Court, February 29, 2016

Appeal: 15-6406 Doc: 6 Filed: 07/27/2015 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Curtis Lee Watson, 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. We 

have reviewed the record and find no reversible error.*

Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district 

court. Watson v. O’Brien, No. 1:14-cv-00114-IMK-JSK (N.D.W. Va. 

Mar. 10, 2015). 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

* The timely filing of specific objections to a magistrate 

judge’s recommendation is necessary to preserve appellate review 

of the district court judgment 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,

155 (1985). Accordingly, because Watson’s only objection to the 

magistrate judge’s recommendation was a citation to Daniel v. 

Fulwood, 766 F.3d 57 (D.C. Cir. 2014), we limit our review to 

whether the district court properly rejected Watson’s reliance on 

Daniel.

Appeal: 15-6406 Doc: 6 Filed: 07/27/2015 Pg: 2 of 2