UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-7950
MICHAEL BRUNELL FLANIGAN,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS; REX
BLOCKER, Physician FCI Edgefield; RICHARD KELSO, Lieutenant
FCI Edgefield; JOHN J. LAMANNA, Warden FCI Edgefield; HARLEY
G. LAPPIN, Director BOP; HECTOR LOPEZ, Physician FCI
Edgefield,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Anderson. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge.
(8:08-cv-00941-RBH)
Submitted: January 19, 2010 Decided: January 28, 2010
Before NIEMEYER, KING, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Michael Brunell Flanigan, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Michael Brunell Flanigan appeals the district court’s
order dismissing without prejudice his complaint filed pursuant
to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. 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) (2006). The magistrate judge recommended that
the complaint be dismissed without prejudice and advised
Flanigan that failure to file timely and specific objections to
this recommendation could waive appellate review of a district
court order based upon the recommendation. Despite this
warning, Flanigan failed to object to the magistrate judge’s
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. Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th
Cir. 1985); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985).
Flanigan has waived appellate review by failing to file
objections 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
2
before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
AFFIRMED
3