Enrique Martinez v. Kenny Atkinson, No. 13-6824 (4th Cir. 2013)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-6824 ENRIQUE MARTINEZ, Petitioner Appellant, v. WARDEN ATKINSON, Kenny, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Orangeburg. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., Senior District Judge. (5:13-cv-00559-GRA) Submitted: September 24, 2013 Before NIEMEYER and Senior Circuit Judge. THACKER, Decided: Circuit September 27, 2013 Judges, and HAMILTON, Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Enrique Martinez, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Enrique Martinez appeals the district court s orders accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on Martinez s 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2006) petition and his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion. find no reversible error. We have reviewed the record and The district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 636(b)(1)(B) (West 2006 & Supp. 2013). relief be denied and The magistrate judge recommended that advised Martinez that failure to file timely, specific objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review recommendation. of a district Despite this court order warning, based Martinez upon only the filed non-specific objections and failed to file specific objections 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. Cir. 1985); see been warned of the consequences of Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Martinez has waived appellate review of his claims by failing to 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 2 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.