David Crum v. Bureau of Prisons, No. 09-7055 (4th Cir. 2010)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-7055 DAVID HALL CRUM, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. BUREAU OF PRISONS; HARRELL WATTS, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Beckley. Thomas E. Johnston, District Judge. (5:08-cv-00090) Submitted: January 19, 2010 Decided: January 26, 2010 Before NIEMEYER, KING, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. David Hall Crum, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: David Hall Crum 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). judge The district court referred this case to a magistrate pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2006). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied citing, among other grounds, remedies, that and Crum advised failed Crum to that exhaust failure administrative to file timely objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the recommendation. Despite this warning, Crum filed no objections to the magistrate judge s finding remedies. that he failed to exhaust administrative Crum now seeks to challenge the dismissal of his action on this basis. The magistrate timely judge s filing of specific recommendation 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 Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). has waived exhaust of appellate administrative review of remedies the by dismissal failing objections after receiving proper notice. 2 to for Crum failure file to specific Accordingly, although we grant Crum leave to proceed in forma pauperis, 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 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.