U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, 2021

Derrick Allen, Sr. v. Chief Prignano

Derrick Allen, Sr. v. Chief Prignano
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Decided November 19, 2021

Derrick Allen, Sr. v. Chief Prignano

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21-6476

DERRICK M. ALLEN, SR., Petitioner - Appellant, v. CHIEF PRIGNANO, Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Thomas D. Schroeder, Chief District Judge. (1:20-cv-01169-TDS-LPA)

Submitted: November 18, 2021 Decided: November 19, 2021

Before MOTZ, THACKER, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Derrick Michael Allen, Sr., Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM: Derrick M. Allen, Sr., a state prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing 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 dismissing the petition and advised Allen 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). Allen has waived appellate review by failing to file objections to the magistrate judge’s recommendation after receiving proper notice.

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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.

DISMISSED

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.