Mauro Hernandez v. B. Meeks, No. 19-6392 (4th Cir. 2019)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 19-6392 MAURO GOROSTIETA HERNANDEZ, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. B. J. MEEKS, Warden; STEPHEN HOEY; L. SANCHEZ, HIT; N. ROSARIO, RN; L. CROSS, HSA; CHRISTOPHER DAVIS, NP; FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Mary G. Lewis, District Judge. (2:18-cv-00661-MGL) Submitted: August 22, 2019 Decided: August 26, 2019 Before KING and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Mauro Gorostieta Hernandez, Appellant Pro Se. Marshall Prince, II, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Mauro Gorostieta Hernandez appeals the district court’s order granting Defendants’ motion for summary judgment in Hernandez’s civil action. The district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2012). The magistrate judge recommended that Defendants’ motion for summary judgment be granted and advised Hernandez that failure to file timely 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. Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Hernandez has waived appellate review by failing to file timely objections after receiving proper notice. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. 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
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.
