Brian L. Brown v. Terry O'Brien, No. 13-6940 (4th Cir. 2013)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-6940 BRIAN L. BROWN, Petitioner - Appellant, v. TERRY O BRIEN, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Clarksburg. Irene M. Keeley, District Judge. (1:12-cv-00032-IMK-JSK) Submitted: November 19, 2013 Before WYNN and Circuit Judge. FLOYD, Circuit Decided: November 22, 2013 Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Brian L. Brown, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Brian L. Brown appeals the district court s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his petition. 28 U.S.C.A. § 2241 (West 2006 & Supp. 2013) The district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 636(b)(1)(B) (West 2006 & Supp. 2013). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Brown that failure to file timely objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the recommendation. The district court granted Brown multiple extensions of time to file objections, but Brown filed none. 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 noncompliance. have been warned of the consequences of Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845 46 (4th Cir. 1985); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Brown has waived appellate review of his claims by failing to file objections after receiving proper notice. we grant leave to proceed in forma judgment of the district court. Accordingly, although pauperis, we affirm the Brown v. O Brien, No. 1:12-cv- 00032-IMK-JSK (N.D.W. Va. Feb. 5, 2013). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 2 presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 3

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.