Malcolm Muhammad v. Gene Johnson, No. 11-6215 (4th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-6215 MALCOLM MUHAMMAD, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. GENE M. JOHNSON, Director of Virginia Department of Corrections; BRYANT WATSON, Warden, Wallens Ridge State Prison; A. P. HARVEY, Assistant Warden, Wallens Ridge State Prison; MAJOR COMBS, Major of Security at Wallens Ridge State Prison; LIEUTENANT COLLINS, Lieutenant at Wallens Ridge State Prison; SERGEANT COCHRANE, Sergeant at Wallens Ridge State Prison; SERGEANT GREER, Sergeant at Wallens Ridge State Prison; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER CHEEKS, Correctional Officer; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER FUSION, Correctional Officer; INVESTIGATOR MCBRIDE, Investigator; B. YOUNG, Sergeant, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, District Judge. (7:10-cv-00395-sgw-mfu) Submitted: June 30, 2011 Decided: Before WILKINSON, DUNCAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. July 6, 2011 Malcolm Muhammad, Appellant Pro Se. Richard Carson Vorhis, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Malcolm Muhammad appeals the district court s order denying his motion for a preliminary injunction in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) action. The district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 636(b)(1)(B) (West 2006 & relief Supp. be 2010). denied The and magistrate advised judge Muhammad that recommended that failure file to timely objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the 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 noncompliance. Cir. 1985); Muhammad objections warned of the consequences of Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th see has 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 deny Muhammad s motions injunctive relief, and to amend. to appoint counsel, for 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. 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.
