James Benjamin Puckett v. HECTOR JOYNER, Warden, Federal Correctional Institution Estill, South Carolina

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 18-7342
JAMES BENJAMIN PUCKETT,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
HECTOR JOYNER, Warden, Federal Correctional Institution Estill, South
Carolina,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Aiken.
David C. Norton, District Judge. (1:18-cv-02404-DCN)
Submitted: April 4, 2019 Decided: April 9, 2019
Before NIEMEYER and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
James Benjamin Puckett, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
James Benjamin Puckett, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s order
dismissing without prejudice 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 dismissing the petition without prejudice for lack of
jurisdiction and advised Puckett 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. Massey v. Ojaniit, 759
F.3d 343, 352 (4th Cir. 2014); see Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 155 (1985). Puckett 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
* The district court’s order is final and appealable as no amendment could cure the
defect identified in Puckett’s petition. See Goode v. Cent. Va. Legal Aid Soc’y, Inc., 807
F.3d 619, 623-24 (4th Cir. 2015)

-- 2 of 2 --