Court Opinion

ID: 4568274
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2020-09-22 22:34:09.927931+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:25:02.767512
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                      No. 20-6343

JAMEL LAW,

                    Petitioner - Appellant,

             v.

J. RAY ORMOND, Warden,

                    Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Richmond. M. Hannah Lauck, District Judge. (3:18-cv-00328-MHL-RCY)

Submitted: August 25, 2020                                        Decided: August 28, 2020

Before KING and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jamel C. Law, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

          Jamel C. Law appeals the district court’s order dismissing without prejudice his 28

U.S.C. § 2241 motion. * 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 Law 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). Law has waived appellate review by

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

notice.

          Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. 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 district court concluded that Law failed to satisfy the test in United States v.
Wheeler, 886 F.3d 415, 429 (4th Cir. 2018). We conclude that the dismissal is a final,
appealable order because “the grounds [for] dismissal make clear that no amendment could
cure the defects in [Law’s] case.” Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union
392, 10 F.3d 1064, 1066 (4th Cir. 1993) (internal quotation marks omitted).

                                               2