Braxton v. Johnson ( 2005 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-6454
JAMES ARTHUR BRAXTON,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
GENE M. JOHNSON, Director of the Virginia
Department of Corrections,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Henry Coke Morgan, Jr., Senior
District Judge. (CA-04-406-2)
Submitted: August 18, 2005 Decided: August 24, 2005
Before WIDENER, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
James Arthur Braxton, Appellant Pro Se. Mark Ralph Davis, OFFICE
OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
James Arthur Braxton, a state prisoner, seeks to appeal
the district court’s order dismissing his petition filed under 28
U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). The district court referred this case to a
magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2000). The
magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised
Braxton that failure to file timely objections to this
recommendation would result in waiver of appellate review of a
district court order based upon the recommendation. Despite this
warning, and an extension by the magistrate judge of the time in
which to do so, Braxton failed to timely file objections to the
magistrate judge’s 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 that failure to object will waive appellate review. See
Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985); see also
Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Braxton has waived appellate
review by failing to file timely 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.
- 2 -
DISMISSED
- 3 -