Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-09-07950/USCOURTS-ca4-09-07950-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Rex Blocker
Appellee
Federal Bureau of Prisons
Appellee
Michael Brunell Flanigan
Appellant
Richard Kelso
Appellee
John J. LaManna
Appellee
Harley G. Lappin
Appellee
Hector Lopez
Appellee
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 09-7950

MICHAEL BRUNELL FLANIGAN, 

 Plaintiff - Appellant, 

 v. 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS; REX 

BLOCKER, Physician FCI Edgefield; RICHARD KELSO, Lieutenant 

FCI Edgefield; JOHN J. LAMANNA, Warden FCI Edgefield; HARLEY 

G. LAPPIN, Director BOP; HECTOR LOPEZ, Physician FCI 

Edgefield, 

 Defendants - Appellees. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Anderson. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge. 

(8:08-cv-00941-RBH) 

Submitted: January 19, 2010 Decided: January 28, 2010 

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. 

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Michael Brunell Flanigan, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 

Appeal: 09-7950 Doc: 12 Filed: 01/28/2010 Pg: 1 of 3
PER CURIAM: 

Michael Brunell Flanigan appeals the district court’s 

order dismissing without prejudice his complaint filed pursuant 

to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of 

Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). The district court referred 

this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 636(b)(1)(B) (2006). The magistrate judge recommended that 

the complaint be dismissed without prejudice and advised 

Flanigan that failure to file timely and specific objections to 

this recommendation could waive appellate review of a district 

court order based upon the recommendation. Despite this 

warning, Flanigan failed to object to the magistrate judge’s 

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). 

Flanigan has waived appellate review by failing to file 

objections after receiving proper notice. Accordingly, we 

affirm the judgment of the district court. 

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and 

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials 

2 

Appeal: 09-7950 Doc: 12 Filed: 01/28/2010 Pg: 2 of 3
3 

before the court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process. 

AFFIRMED

Appeal: 09-7950 Doc: 12 Filed: 01/28/2010 Pg: 3 of 3