UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21-6615

MARION QUINTON BREWSTER, Petitioner - Appellant, v. WARDEN PHELPS, Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Beaufort.

Sherri A. Lydon, District Judge. (9:20-cv-01505-SAL)

Submitted: September 14, 2021 Decided: October 4, 2021

Before MOTZ, FLOYD, and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Marion Quinton Brewster, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM: Marion Quinton Brewster, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing without prejudice Brewster’s 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition in which Brewster sought to challenge his conviction by way of the savings clause in 28 U.S.C. § 2255. 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 Brewster 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). Brewster does not challenge on appeal the district court’s finding that he failed to object after receiving proper notice. See Jackson v. Lightsey, 775 F.3d 170, 177 (4th Cir. 2014) (“The informal brief is an important document; under Fourth Circuit rules, our review is limited to issues preserved in that brief.”). Brewster also does not provide, and our review of the record does not reveal, any evidence supporting his contention in the district court that he did not receive the report and recommendation. Thus, we conclude that Brewster has waived appellate review by failing to file objections to the magistrate judge’s recommendation.

Accordingly, 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 this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED