Jackson v. Smith, No. 06-6308 (4th Cir. 2006)
Annotate this CaseThis opinion or order relates to an opinion or order originally issued on June 26, 2006.
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-6308 JERRY JACKSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus J. V. SMITH, Warden; J. SERRANO, MD; L. ROGERS, I.C.C.I.D.P.; K. WALKER, PA; A. SAHA, PA; H. WATTS, Board of Appeals; JOHN L. LAMANNA, Warden; LOUISA FUERTES-ROSARIO; FNU SERO, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., District Judge. (6:04-cv-02190-GRA) Submitted: November 27, 2006 Decided: December 7, 2006 Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jerry Jackson, Appellant Pro Se. Barbara Murcier Bowens, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Jerry Jackson appeals the district court s order denying relief on his complaint filed pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). The district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ยง 636(b)(1)(B) (2000). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Jackson that failure to file timely objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the recommendation. Despite this warning, Jackson failed to file timely objections to the magistrate judge s 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). Jackson has waived appellate review by failing to timely file specific objections after receiving proper notice. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED - 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.
