UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-6215
MALCOLM MUHAMMAD,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
GENE M. JOHNSON, Director of Virginia Department of
Corrections; BRYANT WATSON, Warden, Wallens Ridge State
Prison; A. P. HARVEY, Assistant Warden, Wallens Ridge State
Prison; MAJOR COMBS, Major of Security at Wallens Ridge
State Prison; LIEUTENANT COLLINS, Lieutenant at Wallens
Ridge State Prison; SERGEANT COCHRANE, Sergeant at Wallens
Ridge State Prison; SERGEANT GREER, Sergeant at Wallens
Ridge State Prison; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER CHEEKS,
Correctional Officer; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER FUSION,
Correctional Officer; INVESTIGATOR MCBRIDE, Investigator; B.
YOUNG, Sergeant,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, District
Judge. (7:10-cv-00395-sgw-mfu)
Submitted: June 30, 2011 Decided: July 6, 2011
Before WILKINSON, DUNCAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Malcolm Muhammad, Appellant Pro Se. Richard Carson Vorhis,
Senior Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for
Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
Malcolm Muhammad appeals the district court’s order
denying his motion for a preliminary injunction in his 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 (2006) action. The district court referred this case to
a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 636(b)(1)(B) (West
2006 & Supp. 2010). The magistrate judge recommended that
relief be denied and advised Muhammad that failure to file
timely 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. Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th
Cir. 1985); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985).
Muhammad has waived appellate review by failing to file
objections after receiving proper notice. Accordingly, we
affirm the judgment of the district court.
We deny Muhammad’s motions to appoint counsel, for
injunctive relief, and to amend. 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