Jimmy Wagoner v. Warden Berkerbil, No. 12-7287 (4th Cir. 2012)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-7287 JIMMY WAGONER, Petitioner - Appellant, v. WARDEN BERKERBIL; TERRY O BRIEN, Respondents Appellees, and BUREAU OF Manager, PRISONS; SLONE, Case Manager; OUSLEY, Case Respondents. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Clarksburg. Irene M. Keeley, District Judge. (1:11-cv-00172-IMK-JSK) Submitted: December 13, 2012 Decided: December 18, 2012 Before MOTZ, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jimmy Wagoner, Appellant Pro Se. Jarod James Douglas, Assistant United States Attorney, Wheeling, West Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Jimmy Wagoner appeals the district court s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2241 (West 2006 & Supp. 2012) petition. magistrate The district court referred this case to a judge pursuant (West 2006 & Supp. 2012). to 28 U.S.C.A. § 636(b)(1)(B) The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Wagoner that failure to file timely and specific appellate objections review of a to this district recommendation court order could based waive upon the recommendation. The magistrate timely judge s filing of specific recommendation is objections necessary to to a preserve appellate review of the substance of that recommendation when the parties have noncompliance. been Wright warned v. of Collins, the 766 consequences F.2d 841, of 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Wagoner has waived appellate review 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 legal before contentions this court are adequately and argument presented would not in aid the the materials 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.