Opinion
22-7119
02-22-2023
LAZARO QUINONES-CEDENO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MS. J. RIDENOUR, Education specialist; M. B. ANTONELLI, FCC Warden; PAUL ADAMS, FCI Warden; MS. M. THOMPKIS, Education supervisor; MS. M. BLUEMLING, Education specialist; E. GARCIA, Ex Associate Warden, Defendants-Appellees.
Lazaro Quinones-Cedeno, Appellant Pro Se.
UNPUBLISHED
Submitted: February 16, 2023
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. Gina M. Groh, District Judge. (3:20-cv-00088-GMG; 5:20-cv-00198-GMG-RWT)
Lazaro Quinones-Cedeno, Appellant Pro Se.
Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, RUSHING, Circuit Judge, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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). Although Quinones-Cedeno 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 judgment of the district court and deny Quinones-Cedeno's motion for leave to amend. 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.