Lazaro Quinones-Cedeno v. MS. J. RIDENOUR, Education specialist

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 22-7119
LAZARO QUINONES-CEDENO,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
MS. J. RIDENOUR, Education specialist; M. B. ANTONELLI, FCC Warden; PAUL
ADAMS, FCI Warden; MS. M. THOMPKIS, Education supervisor; MS. M.
BLUEMLING, Education specialist; E. GARCIA, Ex Associate Warden,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at
Martinsburg. Gina M. Groh, District Judge. (3:20-cv-00088-GMG; 5:20-cv-00198-GMG-
RWT)
Submitted: February 16, 2023 Decided: February 22, 2023
Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, RUSHING, Circuit Judge, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit
Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Lazaro Quinones-Cedeno, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Lazaro Quinones-Cedeno appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his
complaint filed pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of
Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). 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 Quinones-Cedeno that failure to file timely, specific objections to this
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. 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 Quinones-Cedeno 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 judgment of the district court and deny Quinones-
Cedeno’s motion for leave to amend. We dispense with oral argument because the facts

-- 2 of 3 --

3
and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED

-- 3 of 3 --