UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 18-7322
JAMES L. ROUDABUSH, JR.,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
WARDEN FCI EDGEFIELD,
Respondent - Appellee,
and
J. AUSTIN, U.S.M.J.; B. HENDRICKS, U.S.D.J.,
Respondents.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
Anderson. Bruce H. Hendricks, District Judge. (8:18-cv-01818-BHH)
Submitted: January 22, 2019 Decided: January 25, 2019
Before MOTZ, KEENAN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
James Lester Roudabush, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
James Lester Roudabush, Jr., appeals from the district court’s judgment dismissing
his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2012) petition. 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 the petition be dismissed and advised Roudabush that failure to file timely and
specific objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review of a district
court judgment 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. Diamond v. Colonial
Life & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315-16 (4th Cir. 2005); Wells v. Shriners Hosp.,
109 F.3d 198, 201 (4th Cir. 1997). Roudabush has waived appellate review of the district
court’s judgment by filing untimely objections to the magistrate judge’s recommendation
after receiving proper notice. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment.
We deny Roudabush’s motion to stay mandate and petition for rehearing en banc
and 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
2