Juan Jose Colon-Arriaga v. STEVIE KNIGHT, Warden; MELISSA FORSYTH, Camp Administrator

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 21-7602
JUAN JOSE COLON-ARRIAGA,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
STEVIE KNIGHT, Warden; MELISSA FORSYTH, Camp Administrator,
Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Aiken.
Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., Senior District Judge. (1:21-cv-00741-JFA)
Submitted: February 17, 2022 Decided: February 23, 2022
Before AGEE and RUSHING, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Juan Jose Colon-Arriaga, Appellant Pro Se. Martin L. Holmes, Jr., Assistant United States
Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charleston, South Carolina,
for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Juan Jose Colon-Arriaga, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s order
denying relief on Colon-Arriaga’s 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition in which Colon-Arriaga
challenged the execution of his sentence. The district court referred this case to a
magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). The magistrate judge
recommended that relief be denied and advised Colon-Arriaga that failure to file timely,
specific objections to this recommendation would 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. Martin v. Duffy, 858
F.3d 239, 245 (4th Cir. 2017); Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 846-47 (4th Cir. 1985); see
also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 154-55 (1985). Although Colon-Arriaga received
proper notice and filed timely objections to the magistrate judge’s recommendation, he has
waived appellate review because the objections were not specific to the particularized legal
recommendations made by the magistrate judge. See Martin, 858 F.3d at 245 (holding
that, “to preserve for appeal an issue in a magistrate judge’s report, a party must object to
the finding or recommendation on that issue with sufficient specificity so as reasonably to
alert the district court of the true ground for the objection” (internal quotation marks
omitted)). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order.

-- 2 of 3 --

3
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

-- 3 of 3 --