Case Name: Curtis Lee WATSON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Terry O'BRIEN, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-07-27
Citations: 610 F. App'x 299
Docket Number: No. 15-6406
Parties: Curtis Lee WATSON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Terry O’BRIEN, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 610
Pages: 299–299

Head Matter:
Curtis Lee WATSON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Terry O’BRIEN, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 15-6406.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: July 23, 2015.
Decided: July 27, 2015.
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.
Before NIEMEYER and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
. 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, 2015 WL 1038989 (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, 106 S.Ct. 466, 88 L.Ed.2d 435 (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.