Jarrel Johnson v. Marlboro County Detention Center, No. 23-6617 (4th Cir. 2024)

Annotate this Case

This opinion or order relates to an opinion or order originally issued on November 3, 2023.

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 23-6617 JARREL LEE JOHNSON, Petitioner - Appellant, v. WARDEN MARLBORO COUNTY DETENTION CENTER, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Orangeburg. R. Bryan Harwell, Chief District Judge. (5:22-cv-03170-RBH) Submitted: March 28, 2024 Decided: April 1, 2024 Before KING and RUSHING, Circuit Judges, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jarrel Lee Johnson, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Jarrel Lee Johnson seeks to appeal the district court’s order and judgment denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition without prejudice. 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 Johnson that failure to file specific objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the recommendation. Despite this warning, Johnson did not file objections. 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. Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Johnson has waived appellate review by failing to timely file objections after receiving proper notice. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 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.