UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-6210
MUHAMMAD AL-MUJAHIDIN, a/k/a John Hamilton,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
J. HARRIS; SHARONDA SUTTON; PERCY JONES; WARDEN STEVENSON;
LEROY CARTLEDGE; SERGEANT ESTERLINE; OFFICER BECKETT, et
al, In Their Indivd Capacitys; OFFICER JOE FANT,
Defendants – Appellees,
and
INV BEACH,
Defendant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Beaufort. Bruce H. Hendricks, District
Judge. (9:13-cv-00022-BHH)
Submitted: June 30, 2015 Decided: August 6, 2015
Before NIEMEYER and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Muhammad Al-Mujahidin, Appellant Pro Se. Roy F. Laney, Thomas
Lowndes Pope, Jayme Leigh Shy, Damon C. Wlodarczyk, RILEY, POPE
& LANEY, LLC, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
Muhammad Al-Mujahidin appeals the district court’s order
accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying
relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint. The district
court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2012). The magistrate judge recommended
that relief be denied and advised Al-Mujahidin 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). Al-Mujahidin has waived
appellate review of the district court’s dismissal of his
excessive-force claim based on collateral estoppel by failing to
file specific objections on this issue after receiving proper
notice.
With regard to Al-Mujahidin’s other claims, we have
reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly,
we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court.
Al-Mujahidin v. Harris, No. 9:13-cv-00022-BHH (D.S.C. Jan. 27,
3
2015). 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
4