Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-24-06802/USCOURTS-ca4-24-06802-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Heather L. Ray
Appellee
Gilbert Rosa-Sanchez
Appellant

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 24-6802

GILBERT ROSA-SANCHEZ,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

HEATHER L. RAY,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at 

Martinsburg. Gina M. Groh, District Judge. (3:23-cv-00237-GMG-RWT)

Submitted: December 19, 2024 Decided: December 27, 2024

Before KING and BERNER, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Gilbert Rosa-Sanchez, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 24-6802 Doc: 8 Filed: 12/27/2024 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM: 

Gilbert Rosa-Sanchez appeals the district court’s order dismissing with prejudice 

his habeas corpus petition filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The district court referred 

this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). The magistrate judge 

recommended denying the petition and dismissing the case for failure to state a claim and 

advised Rosa-Sanchez that failure to file timely, specific objections to this recommendation 

could waive appellate review of a district court order based on 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. Martin v. Duffy, 858 

F.3d 239, 245 (4th Cir. 2017); Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 846-47 (4th Cir. 1985); see 

also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 154-55 (1985). Although Rosa-Sanchez received proper 

notice and filed timely objections to the magistrate judge’s recommendation, his objections 

were not specific to the particularized legal recommendations made by the magistrate 

judge, so appellate review is foreclosed. See Martin, 858 F.3d at 245 (holding that, “to 

preserve for appeal an issue in a magistrate judge’s report, a party must object to the finding 

or recommendation on that issue with sufficient specificity so as reasonably to alert the 

district court of the true ground for the objection” (internal quotation marks omitted)). 

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. 

USCA4 Appeal: 24-6802 Doc: 8 Filed: 12/27/2024 Pg: 2 of 3
3

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

USCA4 Appeal: 24-6802 Doc: 8 Filed: 12/27/2024 Pg: 3 of 3