Ivan Boston v. William Bennett, No. 19-6274 (4th Cir. 2019)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 19-6274 IVAN BOSTON, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. WILLIAM BENNETT, D.D.S.; THOMAS KANE, Director of B.O.P.; MICHAEL WEAVER, Health Service Administrator; TIFFANY SMITH, Chief Dentist; REBECCA GROVE, Assistant Health Service Administrator, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Elkins. John Preston Bailey, District Judge. (2:17-cv-00015-JPB) Submitted: July 18, 2019 Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ivan Boston, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Decided: July 22, 2019 PER CURIAM: Ivan Boston appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his complaint filed pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). 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 Boston that failure to file timely objections to this recommendation could 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). Boston has waived appellate review by failing to file objections after receiving proper notice. Accordingly, we 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.
