Alex Abou-Hussein v. Ray Mabu, No. 11-1038 (4th Cir. 2011)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-1038 ALEX ABOU-HUSSEIN, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. RAY MABUS, Secretary of the Navy, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Richard Mark Gergel, District Judge. (2:09-cv-01988-RMG) Submitted: February 24, 2011 Decided: March 3, 2011 Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Alex Abou-Hussein, Appellant Pro Se. John Harris Douglas, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Alex Abou-Hussein appeals the district court s order denying relief on his Freedom of Information Act complaint. The district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 636(b)(1)(B) (West 2006 & Supp. 2010). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Abou-Hussein that failure to file timely specific objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the recommendation. The magistrate timely judge s filing of recommendation specific is objections necessary to to a preserve appellate review of the substance of that recommendation when the parties have noncompliance. been Wright warned v. of Collins, the 766 consequences F.2d 841, of 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Abou-Hussein has waived appellate review by failing specific objections after receiving proper notice. to file Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal before contentions the court are adequately and argument presented would not in aid the the materials decisional process. AFFIRMED 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.