Juanice Gaines v. Warden FCI Edgefield, No. 18-6141 (4th Cir. 2018)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 18-6141 JUANICE GAINES, Petitioner - Appellant, v. WARDEN FCI EDGEFIELD, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Orangeburg. David C. Norton, District Judge. (5:16-cv-01187-DCN) Submitted: May 24, 2018 Decided: May 30, 2018 Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Juanice Gaines, Appellant Pro Se. Barbara Murcier Bowens, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Juanice Gaines, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on Gaines’ 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2012) petition. The district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2012). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Gaines that failure to file timely specific objections to this recommendation would waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the recommendation. The timely filing of specific objections to a magistrate judge’s recommendation is necessary to preserve appellate review of the substance of that recommendation when the parties have been warned of the consequences of noncompliance. Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Gaines has waived appellate review by failing to file objections after receiving proper notice. Accordingly, we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis and affirm the judgment of the district court. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the 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.