Court Opinion

ID: 9374768
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-23 21:00:58.113878+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:52.966764
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-7119      Doc: 12         Filed: 02/22/2023     Pg: 1 of 3

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 22-7119

        LAZARO QUINONES-CEDENO,

                            Plaintiff - Appellant,

                     v.

        MS. J. RIDENOUR, Education specialist; M. B. ANTONELLI, FCC Warden; PAUL
        ADAMS, FCI Warden; MS. M. THOMPKIS, Education supervisor; MS. M.
        BLUEMLING, Education specialist; E. GARCIA, Ex Associate Warden,

                            Defendants - Appellees.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at
        Martinsburg. Gina M. Groh, District Judge. (3:20-cv-00088-GMG; 5:20-cv-00198-GMG-
        RWT)

        Submitted: February 16, 2023                                 Decided: February 22, 2023

        Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, RUSHING, Circuit Judge, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit
        Judge.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Lazaro Quinones-Cedeno, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-7119      Doc: 12         Filed: 02/22/2023      Pg: 2 of 3

        PER CURIAM:

               Lazaro Quinones-Cedeno appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his

        complaint filed pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal 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). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be

        denied and advised Quinones-Cedeno that failure to file timely, specific objections to this

        recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order based upon 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 Quinones-Cedeno received

        proper notice and filed timely objections to the magistrate judge’s recommendation, he has

        waived appellate review because the objections were not specific to the particularized legal

        recommendations made by the magistrate judge. 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 and deny Quinones-

        Cedeno’s motion for leave to amend. We dispense with oral argument because the facts

                                                     2
USCA4 Appeal: 22-7119     Doc: 12         Filed: 02/22/2023   Pg: 3 of 3

        and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and

        argument would not aid the decisional process.

                                                                                 AFFIRMED

                                                   3