Court Opinion

ID: 6112480
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-01-25 20:01:16.44605+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:59:49.250878
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                       No. 21-7132

LAZARO QUINONES-CEDENO,

                     Plaintiff - Appellant,

             v.

MS. JENNIFER RESH, Nurse; MS. K. BANKSON, Nurse; PAUL ADAMS,
Warden,

                     Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at
Martinsburg. Gina M. Groh, Chief District Judge. (3:20-cv-00050-GMG)

Submitted: January 20, 2022                                       Decided: January 25, 2022

Before WILKINSON, DIAZ, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Lazaro Quinones-Cedeno, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
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). Quinones-Cedeno 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 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