UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 21-7625
AKEEM JAMAL EDWARDS,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
WARDEN HUTCHINSON, FCI Edgefield,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Beaufort.
Donald C. Coggins, Jr., District Judge. (9:21-cv-01113-DCC)
Submitted: March 29, 2022 Decided: April 1, 2022
Before HARRIS, QUATTLEBAUM, and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Akeem Jamal Edwards, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Akeem Jamal Edwards, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s order denying
relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition. The district court referred this case to a magistrate
judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). The magistrate judge recommended that relief
be denied and advised Edwards that failure to file timely, specific 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. Martin v. Duffy, 858
F.3d 239, 245 (4th Cir. 2017); Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 846-47 (4th Cir. 1985); see
also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 154-55 (1985). Although Edwards received proper
notice and filed timely objections to the magistrate judge’s recommendation, he has waived
appellate review because the objections were not specific to the particularized legal
recommendations made by the magistrate judge. See Martin, 858 F.3d at 245 (holding
that, “to preserve for appeal an issue in a magistrate judge’s report, a party must object to
the finding or recommendation on that issue with sufficient specificity so as reasonably to
alert the district court of the true ground for the objection” (internal quotation marks
omitted)); see also Massey v. Ojaniit, 759 F.3d 343, 352 (4th Cir. 2014) (stating that failure
to file specific objections is not cured by district court’s de novo review). Accordingly, we
affirm the judgment of the district court.
2
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
3