ROUDABUSH v. J. Austin, U.S.M.J.; B. Hendricks, U.S.D.J., Respondents. (2019)

James Lester Roudabush, Jr., appeals from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2012) petition. The district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2012). The magistrate judge recommended that the petition be dismissed and advised Roudabush that failure to file timely and specific objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court judgment 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. Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315-16 (4th Cir. 2005); Wells v. Shriners Hosp., 109 F.3d 198, 201 (4th Cir. 1997). Roudabush has waived appellate review of the district court’s judgment by filing untimely objections to the magistrate judge’s recommendation after receiving proper notice. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment.

We deny Roudabush’s motion to stay mandate and petition for rehearing en banc and 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

PER CURIAM:

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.