Opinion
21-7602
02-23-2022
JUAN JOSE COLON-ARRIAGA, Petitioner - Appellant, v. STEVIE KNIGHT, Warden; MELISSA FORSYTH, Camp Administrator, Respondents - Appellees.
Juan Jose Colon-Arriaga, Appellant Pro Se. Martin L. Holmes, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellees.
UNPUBLISHED
Submitted: February 17, 2022
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Aiken. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., Senior District Judge. (1:21-cv-00741-JFA)
Juan Jose Colon-Arriaga, Appellant Pro Se.
Martin L. Holmes, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Before AGEE and RUSHING, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
1
PER CURIAM
Juan Jose Colon-Arriaga, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court's order denying relief on Colon-Arriaga's 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition in which Colon-Arriaga challenged the execution of his sentence. 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 Colon-Arriaga that failure to file timely, specific objections to this recommendation would 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). Although Colon-Arriaga received proper notice and filed timely objections to the magistrate judge's recommendation, he has waived appellate review because the objections were not specific to the particularized legal recommendations made by the magistrate judge. See Martin, 858 F.3d at 245 (holding that, "to preserve for appeal an issue in a magistrate judge's report, a party must object to the finding or recommendation on that issue with sufficient specificity so as reasonably to alert the district court of the true ground for the objection" (internal quotation marks omitted)). Accordingly, we affirm the district court's order. 2
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. 3