Gregory Ivy v. Hector Joyner, No. 19-6315 (4th Cir. 2019)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 19-6315 GREGORY D. IVY, Petitioner - Appellant, v. HECTOR JOYNER, Warden, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Beaufort. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior District Judge. (9:18-cv-02158-HMH) Submitted: April 25, 2019 Decided: April 30, 2019 Before FLOYD and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Gregory D. Ivy, Appellant Pro Se. Marshall Prince, II, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for Respondent. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Gregory D. Ivy, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 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 denying relief and advised Ivy that failure to file timely, specific objections to the recommendation would waive appellate review of a district court order based on 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. Massey v. Ojaniit, 759 F.3d 343, 352 (4th Cir. 2014); see Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 155 (1985). Ivy has waived appellate review by failing to file objections. 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.