Kingdawud Burgess v. Warden Atkinson, No. 13-7800 (4th Cir. 2014)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-7800 KINGDAWUD BURGESS, Petitioner Appellant, v. WARDEN ATKINSON, FCI Edgefield, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Anderson. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., Senior District Judge. (8:13-cv-01178-GRA) Submitted: March 28, 2014 Decided: April 4, 2014 Before KING, AGEE, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Kingdawud Burgess, Appellant Pro Se. Marshall Prince, II, Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Kingdawud Majahid Burgess, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate (2012) judge and petition. reversible denying We error. have In relief on his 28 U.S.C. reviewed the record report and recommendation, the and § 2241 find no the magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Burgess that failure to file timely, specific objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the recommendation. Despite this warning, Burgess failed to file specific objections to the magistrate judge s 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. Cir. 1985); been warned of the consequences of Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Burgess has waived appellate review of his claims by failing to file specific objections after receiving proper notice. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. legal We dispense with oral argument because the facts and 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.