USCA4 Appeal: 23-6878 Doc: 20 Filed: 10/24/2024 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23-6878

OSCAR ORLANDO BARRERA-PINEDA,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

D. LEU, Warden of Petersburg,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Mark S. Davis, Chief District Judge. (2:22-cv-00411-MSD-DEM)

Submitted: October 22, 2024 Decided: October 24, 2024

Before KING and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Oscar Orlando Barrera-Pineda, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 23-6878 Doc: 20 Filed: 10/24/2024 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:

Oscar Orlando Barrera-Pineda, a federal inmate, appeals the district court’s order

dismissing his

petition. The district court referred this case to a

magistrate judge pursuant to

(b)(1)(B). The magistrate judge

recommended dismissing the petition for lack of jurisdiction and advised Oscar Orlando

Barrera-Pineda 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,

(4th Cir. 2017); Wright v. Collins,

(4th Cir. 1985); see

also Thomas v. Arn,

(1985). Barrera-Pineda has forfeited appellate

review by failing to file objections to the magistrate judge’s recommendation after

receiving proper notice. We therefore affirm the district court’s order dismissing the

§ 2241 petition. We have further reviewed the district court’s subsequent order denying

Barrera-Pineda’s motion for reconsideration and discern no error. Accordingly, we affirm

the order and deny Barrera-Pineda’s motion to appoint counsel. 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

2