Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-08-06814/USCOURTS-ca4-08-06814-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Bureau of Prisons
Appellee
J. Owens
Appellee
Zikiteran D. Robinson
Appellant

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-6814

ZIKITERAN D. ROBINSON,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

J. OWENS, Warden; BUREAU OF PRISONS,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Florence. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District

Judge. (4:07-cv-03118-HMH)

Submitted: September 8, 2008 Decided: September 17, 2008

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Zikiteran D. Robinson, Appellant Pro Se. Barbara Murcier Bowens,

Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for

Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 08-6814 Doc: 11 Filed: 09/17/2008 Pg: 1 of 2
*While Robinson sufficiently objected to the magistrate

judge’s findings regarding whether he was in the primary custody of

the federal government at the time of his arrest, he failed to

specifically object to the remainder of the magistrate judge’s

recommendations, thereby waiving appellate review of those claims.

See United States v. Midgette, 478 F.3d 616, 621-22 (4th Cir.),

cert. denied, 127 S. Ct. 3032 (2007).

2

PER CURIAM:

Zikiteran D. Robinson, 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. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible

error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the

district court.*

 Robinson v. Owens, No. 4:07-cv-03118-HMH (D.S.C.

Mar. 20, 2008). Additionally, we deny Robinson’s motion for

production of discovery materials. 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: 08-6814 Doc: 11 Filed: 09/17/2008 Pg: 2 of 2