Jose Lopez-Diaz v. H. JOYNER, Warden

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 20-6127
JOSE LOPEZ-DIAZ,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
H. JOYNER, Warden,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Aiken.
J. Michelle Childs, District Judge. (1:18-cv-03471-JMC)
Submitted: September 10, 2020 Decided: September 15, 2020
Before WILKINSON and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed as modified by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jose Lopez-Diaz, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Jose Lopez-Diaz appeals the district court’s order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2241
petition for lack of jurisdiction. The district court referred this case to a magistrate judge
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The magistrate judge recommended that the case be
dismissed and advised Lopez-Diaz 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 Lopez-Diaz 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. However, we modify
the dismissal order, Lopez-Diaz v. Joyner, No. 1:18-cv-03471-JMC (D.S.C. Jan. 13, 2020),
to reflect dismissal without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction, and affirm the dismissal as
modified, 28 U.S.C. § 2106.

-- 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 AS MODIFIED

-- 3 of 3 --