USCA4 Appeal: 24-6802 Doc: 8 Filed: 12/27/2024 Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 24-6802

GILBERT ROSA-SANCHEZ, Petitioner - Appellant, v. HEATHER L. RAY, Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. Gina M. Groh, District Judge. (3:23-cv-00237-GMG-RWT)

Submitted: December 19, 2024 Decided: December 27, 2024

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

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Gilbert Rosa-Sanchez, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 24-6802 Doc: 8 Filed: 12/27/2024 Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM: Gilbert Rosa-Sanchez appeals the district court’s order dismissing with prejudice his habeas corpus petition filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). The magistrate judge recommended denying the petition and dismissing the case for failure to state a claim and advised Rosa-Sanchez that failure to file timely, specific objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order based on 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 Rosa-Sanchez received proper notice and filed timely objections to the magistrate judge’s recommendation, his objections were not specific to the particularized legal recommendations made by the magistrate judge, so appellate review is foreclosed. 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)).

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.

USCA4 Appeal: 24-6802 Doc: 8 Filed: 12/27/2024 Pg: 3 of 3

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