LAW v. ORMOND (2020)

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, 106 S.Ct. 466, 88 L.Ed.2d 435 (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

FOOTNOTES

FOOTNOTE.   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).

PER CURIAM:

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.