Spencer Utsey v. Warden of Kirkland ( 2021 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 20-7683
SPENCER UTSEY, a/k/a Spencer Clay Utsey,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
WARDEN OF KIRKLAND CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION,
Respondent - Appellee,
and
SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,
Respondent.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
Anderson. J. Michelle Childs, District Judge. (8:19-cv-03218-JMC)
Submitted: March 15, 2021 Decided: April 23, 2021
Before MOTZ and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Spencer Utsey, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Spencer Utsey seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28
U.S.C. § 2254 petition. 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 Utsey 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 Utsey received proper notice
and filed timely objections to the magistrate judge’s recommendation, he has waived
review of the claims pursued on appeal because his objections did not address the same
claims. 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 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 this court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
DISMISSED
2