Esau Jenkins v. P. A. Eneje, No. 09-7765 (4th Cir. 2009)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-7765 ESAU JENKINS, a/k/a Esau Jenkins, Jr., Plaintiff Appellant, v. P. A. ENEJE; P. A. DECKER; M. RIVERA, Warden, FCI Estill, Defendants Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Anderson. Patrick Michael Duffy, District Judge. (8:09-cv-02075-PMD) Submitted: December 15, 2009 Decided: December 22, 2009 Before MICHAEL and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Esau Jenkins, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Esau Jenkins appeals the denying relief on his civil action. this case to a magistrate § 636(b)(1)(B) (2006). district court s order The district court referred judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Jenkins 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, Jenkins failed to object 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. been Wright warned v. of Collins, the 766 consequences F.2d 841, of 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Jenkins has waived appellate review by failing to timely file specific objections after receiving proper notice. Accordingly, 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 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.