UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-7055
DAVID HALL CRUM,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
BUREAU OF PRISONS; HARRELL WATTS,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia, at Beckley. Thomas E. Johnston,
District Judge. (5:08-cv-00090)
Submitted: January 19, 2010 Decided: January 26, 2010
Before NIEMEYER, KING, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
David Hall Crum, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
David Hall Crum appeals the district court’s order
denying relief on 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 relief be denied citing, among
other grounds, that Crum failed to exhaust administrative
remedies, and advised Crum that failure to file timely
objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review
of a district court order based upon the recommendation.
Despite this warning, Crum filed no objections to the magistrate
judge’s finding that he failed to exhaust administrative
remedies. Crum now seeks to challenge the dismissal of his
action on this basis.
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). Crum
has waived appellate review of the dismissal for failure to
exhaust administrative remedies by failing to file specific
objections after receiving proper notice. Accordingly, although
2
we grant Crum leave to proceed in forma pauperis, 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
before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
AFFIRMED
3