Kwamane Everett v. B. Antonelli, No. 19-6673 (4th Cir. 2019)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 19-6673 KWAMANE MONTE EVERETT, Petitioner - Appellant, v. B.M. ANTONELLI, Warden, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. Mary G. Lewis, District Judge. (4:18-cv-01248-MGL) Submitted: June 20, 2019 Decided: June 25, 2019 Before NIEMEYER, AGEE, and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Kwamane Monte Everett, Appellant Pro Se. Marshall Prince, II, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Kwamane Monte Everett, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s order denying relief on Everett’s 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 dismissing Everett’s petition and advised him that failure to file timely, specific objections to the 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. See Massey v. Ojaniit, 759 F.3d 343, 352 (4th Cir. 2014); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 155 (1985). Here, Everett 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.