Court Opinion

ID: 6318117
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-02-28 21:01:36.503277+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:19:20.984409
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                       No. 21-2098

BLAKE SANDLAIN,

                     Petitioner - Appellant,

              v.

WARDEN, FCI MCDOWELL,

                     Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at
Bluefield. David A. Faber, Senior District Judge. (1:20-cv-00790)

Submitted: February 24, 2022                                 Decided: February 28, 2022

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and NIEMEYER and KING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Blake Sandlain, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

       Blake Sandlain appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his petition for a

writ of mandamus. 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 Sandlain 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). Sandlain has waived appellate review

by failing to file objections to the magistrate judge’s recommendation after receiving

proper notice. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. We also deny as

moot Sandlain’s motion requesting a decision in this appeal.

       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

                                             2