Michael Flanigan v. US, No. 09-7950 (4th Cir. 2010)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-7950 MICHAEL BRUNELL FLANIGAN, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS; REX BLOCKER, Physician FCI Edgefield; RICHARD KELSO, Lieutenant FCI Edgefield; JOHN J. LAMANNA, Warden FCI Edgefield; HARLEY G. LAPPIN, Director BOP; HECTOR LOPEZ, Physician FCI Edgefield, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Anderson. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge. (8:08-cv-00941-RBH) Submitted: January 19, 2010 Decided: January 28, 2010 Before NIEMEYER, KING, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael Brunell Flanigan, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Michael Brunell Flanigan appeals the district court s order dismissing without prejudice his complaint filed pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). this case to a magistrate § 636(b)(1)(B) (2006). the complaint be of Fed. Bureau of The district court referred judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. The magistrate judge recommended that dismissed without prejudice and advised Flanigan that failure to file timely and specific objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the recommendation. Despite this warning, Flanigan failed to object to the magistrate judge s recommendation. 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 have 1985); Flanigan see objections has warned of the consequences of Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th noncompliance. Cir. been also waived after Thomas v. appellate receiving Arn, 474 review by proper notice. U.S. 140 failing (1985). to Accordingly, file we affirm the judgment of the district court. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 2 presented in the materials before the 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.